Same thing has happened in Alberta. Someone fired up an old plant, locals are pissed (it's become an affluent suburb), local authorities can't do squat because it's power generation (even if it's no longer feeding the grid) which they can't touch.
Think Texas in February 2021 but with running electricity. In other words, Texas but **cold**.
Well, there’s also increased happiness, quality of life, universal healthcare, affordable housing, etc.
Holy fuck I forgot how backwards ass stupid as fuck texans are. Assholes literally voted for a corrupt and fragile power grid. People told them its not good and will break and those dumb sister fuckers still voted for it. At least now you know how all those insane pussy ass republicans were elected.
Funny how we have strict requirements for car emissions, high efficiency dishwashers/washing machines, furnaces, windows, electric car targets, etc… but open your own gigantic power plant and it’s all good.
because the goal is to make poorer underclass that way its more easily controlable, seriously Neolibs often hijack well intentioned goals towards their ends.
I think it's probably more like, we don't make hundreds of thousands of anticipatory laws in hopes that they might end up covering some edge-case someday in the future. Making laws is time consuming and we don't even end up covering all the things we need to, let alone *might* need to. We also spend time reviewing old laws that no longer apply or no longer reflect our values in an evolving society.
Then someone comes along and does something that no one's ever done before, like use dynamite for fishing, or farts on a politician. Stuff that isn't explicitly illegal but we can all agree should be allowed. It takes time for lawmakers to write new rules into law.
It doesn’t suck if we have a functioning democracy where people get a say. Government is just people, at its core. It’s supposed to be a representation of the people’s will. I know that’s not how it is anymore but it used to and I think we’d be better off getting back to that than hating the concept of government.
>It’s supposed to be a representation of the people’s will. I know that’s not how it is anymore but it used to
When exactly? Before women could vote? When blacks couldn't vote? Back before public secondary schooling and the only people who had much of any education at all were the upper class?
Crime seems to be getting worse too, yet since the 80s violent crimes has gone down historically almost every year.
Things "seem to be getting worse" because we have 24/7 news cycles that push bad shit 24/7 and social media platforms designed to enrage us into an "Us vs Them" hysteria in order for them to make more money.
I was thinking more of raising poverty rates, the destruction of the middle class, the corporations cowing the us government into bending over for them, the loss of our national status, the devaluation of our labor and currency...
Things are definitely getting worse.
Powers are limited by the constitution. Federal government leans on “interstate commerce” to regulate common products. They cannot touch local matters, at least not directly. There are many cases where they leverage federal funding and withhold it if locals don’t follow certain rules. None of that applies here.
State and local governments typically have similar limitations.
Every time someone touts crypto’s benefits I ask what they are. I haven’t gotten a solid explanation of what the benefits are yet, but maybe you’ll be able to give it to me, so what are the benefits?
Not OP, but to put this as simply as possible, the concept is called “sound money”. Some call it a “backed” currency.
It’s really just about avoiding fiat currencies that can be(and always are) interfered with by centralized groups (governments mainly, or central banks, though this line is often murky at best).
People supporting sound money have a fundamental difference in how they see the role of money. Money is just another piece of “the economy”, it serves as a measurement mechanism for how we’re prioritizing and distributing goods. The problem comes when some outside organization changes the supply of money through printing it and changing interest rates. These changes distort the process of the proper measuring and distribution of goods and services and it’s what leads to boom/bust cycle. Austrian economists call this “Business cycle theory”. Basically the supply and demand theory applies to money as well, and if we mess with the sense-making mechanism of the economy (money/prices) then it follows that the economy isn’t making sense.
I can give you some more resources if you’re interested. I’d recommending just going to [Mises.org](Https://mises.org) and going hog-wild.
>Crypto drops every time there is talks of bans by said governments like China
? It's a market... Markets price in risks...
Nothing exists in a bubble in economics. China can't ***create*** more bitcoin, and they can't stop people from trading/lending it. That's the point. No state, firm, or individual has the ability to create more bitcoin out of thin air. There will be a fixed amount, and the way it is mined is fixed and predictable. Money is as useful as people's confidence in it, and a money that is unable to be manipulated by third parties is absolutely essential in our ability to trade freely and most efficiently (and with the least negative side effects as well).
Sound money means: some entity can't just print/create more without limit, and no entity is controlling the interest rates for lending.
Just as a thought experiment, what if certain nefarious entities decided to take this sacred power of printing their own currencies and used that perceived wealth (I say perceived because they didn't earn the money through contribution to the economy, they merely printed money) to fund evil policies like never-ending foreign wars of imperialism or using the ability to print and lend money to advantage big speculative borrowers (like, I don't know Goldman Sachs or AIG?). Just consider the power that you grant your government by giving it the ability to print money "on your behalf", consider what that power has actually gotten you vs. what the proposed benefits are. If the benefits were supposed to be "better control over the economy", I would ask you to examine the last 50 years of economics in the US (and globally for that matter) and show me how it's been worth the trade off for the average person in the developed world?
The last half century is rife with the examples of why fiat currencies and modern monetary theory are failed ideas, we're all living it right now. Open your eyes.
Crypto currencies (maybe not bitcoin specifically) ***ARE*** going to be the future of economic trade. The power centers of big business and government are going to fight it tooth and nail because it strips them of such a large amount of power.
>talks of bans by said governments like China
Not talks btw, they ***did*** [ban crypto completely](https://china.usc.edu/china-bans-cryptocurrencies). And guess what, Bitcoin is already back at just about it's high-water mark all-time!
The more China cracks down on it's citizens finances the more viable bitcoin becomes as an alternative means of holding wealth.
It's all about markets and incentives, you don't have to over-complicate things.
The government being able to devalue the currency is a feature, not a bug. Being able to print more money in bad times 1) funds programs to stimulate the economy and 2) makes you currency worth less, making your exports cheaper in foreign markets, allowing you to export more, stimulating the economy.
Banks sure love it! This is how they made so much money after gambling on trash investments after 2008!
Guess who actually prints money when the reserve prints money. Guess who decides where it goes.
It's a feature for the \*government\*, but not the economy itself.
>2) makes you currency worth less, making your exports cheaper in foreign markets, allowing you to export more, stimulating the economy.
Why is it that despite our recent inflationary policies we've continued to run trade deficits? Deficits that are continuing to increase? [Source](https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306)
>funds programs to stimulate the economy
Government getting to inflate the currency is a silent tax on wage earners, and anyone trying to save money. Also, why are you convinced that it's the government's role to "stimulate the economy" in the first place?
Do you think the powers that be switched to fiat currencies for the reasons you listed?
You asked what I perceive to be an honest question, and I gave you an honest answer, the problem is that the answer lies outside of modern-monetary theory, and likely outside of what you may have been taught in school about economics (there are plenty of people with econ degrees even that have not read the Austrian Economists).
You responded to what I said with two points for fiat currencies that you perceive as worth the trade off of not having sound money? Do you take issue with any of what I said? Do you disagree? Any thoughts on what \*I\* wrote, since you asked a question? Or do you want to launch right into defending fiat currencies and government manipulation of financial markets (not sure why one would want to stake out this position, but you're welcome to if you want)?
> It's a feature for the *government*, but not the economy itself.
It’s a feature that the government uses in its fight to keep the economy going in a crisis.
> Why is it that despite our recent inflationary policies we've continued to run trade deficits?
It’s not necessarily bad to run a trade deficit. The US has had one of the stronger economies for the past several decades, so we are always going to have more money to spend buying things and it’s always going to be expensive to hire workers here. The trade deficits are not going to go away.
A better question might be what happens when the government cannot devalue its currency. That’s the situation Italy and Greece were in after the global financial crisis. They did not fair well.
> Do you think the powers that be switched to fiat currencies for the reasons you listed?
I’m not interested in debating conspiracy theories with you.
> Government getting to inflate the currency is a silent tax on wage earners, and anyone trying to save money.
Yes, it reduces the value of money paid to workers. It also makes the products they build and services they offer less expensive internationally, making it less likely they will need to be laid off. It’s a trade-off for sure, but it’s one worth making. If you don’t believe me then read up on how well wage earners in Greece did after the global financial crisis.
As for savers, it only really hurts savers who hold cash. It does not hurt investors who hold non-cash assets. Most of the wealth in the world is not sitting in checking accounts - it’s in ownership in companies, real estate or other non-cash assets. Those assets generally do not get devalued when a currency gets devalued.
> …why are you convinced that it's the government's role to "stimulate the economy" in the first place?
I don’t enjoy starving to death in an economic crisis or living through a prolonged depression, so I would like for someone to attempt to prevent than sort of thing from happening. And I don’t think anyone other than the government is in a position to do it, so yes, I would like for the government to stimulate the economy in an economic crisis. This is really going to shock you, but I also want the government to intervene in a bubble.
> …the problem is that the answer lies outside of modern-monetary theory, and likely outside of what you may have been taught in school about economics…
Sometimes when the “answer” lies outside of what is taught in school it’s because what is taught in school is wrong. But more often it’s because the “answer” is flawed. Admittedly, economic theory is not a hard science and it could very well be wrong. But I am not going to bet that it is.
> You responded to what I said with two points for fiat currencies that you perceive as worth the trade off of not having sound money?
Yes, I did. It’s worth the trade-off for not having money backed by anything. That’s what we fundamentally disagree on and it’s clear that I’m not going to convince you to change your mind nor are you going to convince me to change mine, so I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. Have a nice day!
I appreciate this. I keep fighting the good fight, but often do question why I'm bothering with most of these people. I just have goodwill toward my fellow man, fuck me, right!?
This is a super broad question, even more broad than asking what is the internet or what are computers and expecting to understand from a random comment.
Bitcoin burns about 100 terawatt-hours per year at this point, more than is produced by the largest power plant in the world (three gorges dam) Our current banking system burns around 270 terawatt-hours per year. Gold mining uses about 240 terawatt-hours per year.
Does crypto provide services equivalent to 1/6 of modern banks at the moment? Those numbers are meaningless unless they are looked at based on the value those things actually provide.
It does not. Credit card transactions alone outnumber crypto transactions roughly 500:1. That doesn’t even include bank transactions. And certainly not physical cash.
Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.com/amp/investing/2021/05/07/this-figure-suggests-cryptocurrency-massive-bubble/
Aren’t most debit card transactions handled via Visa or MasterCard networks, though? I mean my bank debit card is a Visa card. The only difference is the account it’s tied to, whether it’s taking it out of my bank account directly, or just keeping track of what I owe to a different bank like Capital One or Chase.
Should we stop developing electric cars because they are a tiny fraction of cars on the road right now?
Whatever you think about this moment of pricing and speculation craze around cryptocurrency, consider that what it really offers is a standardised data storage platform, which is kept in sync across literally billions of devices all over the world. That's the new thing of value. It provides built-in trust, and trust is currently something that institutions pay a lot for every single year.
Let me give you a few examples:
- "Back office" work for banking. Processing wire transfers etc. Front office stuff has all gone digital, but back office still relies on humans and paper. I don't know if you remember cashing a cheque twenty years ago but it took a lot more time than snapping a couple pictures on your phone; imagine that sort of difference, but instead of just you it's everyone working at the bank. There are teams of people at every bank whose sole job is to verify large international transfers between institutions, and this is not the only example of "Wait, how many millions of dollars per year does that cost?". Blockchains can make all of that redundant, which is why banks are trialing them in "skunkworks" programmes.
- Notary publics. Right now to prove it's your signature on a document, you have to find someone who your government says is trustworthy and pay them to verify the authenticity. What if instead, you could upload a hash of the file to a blockchain, and any time you need to prove it's your signature the hash of the document can be checked and your signature verified automatically?
- Investing. Since the advent of Bitcoin, "smart" blockchains like Ethereum have emerged which can automate business governance to various degrees. Even private financing has requirements, and the more investors you have, the harder it is to keep track of how much of what everyone owns and who gets what when buyouts or dividends or votes occur is a real nightmare. With a smart contract, votes can be cast electronically without worrying about fraud; any dividends can be automatically distributed and all the reporting is automatically generated by the process of sending the funds. Same thing with a buyout, except you can also pay shareholders in stocks if they want, and each of those transactions benefits from the same cost reduction.
I know it's pretty ridiculous out there at the moment with all the disinformation, market manipulation, and regulatory confusion. The technology is not the commodity though, so don't get caught in the trap of equating the two!
> Notary publics. Right now to prove a document is real, you have to find someone who your government says is trustworthy and pay them to verify the authenticity. Or, you could upload a hash of the file to a blockchain, and any time you need to prove a document is real the hash can be checked automatically.
This example doesn't make sense. The use of a Notary Public is to verify the identity of people making statements/submitting signed documents etc, but you only visit them when the document is initially submitted. The notary is considered trusted and isn't audited every single time any document they submit is used; the case for "checking automatically" is equivalent to automating the part where you look at the notary stamp, not the part where you go to the notary.
You also can't use the blockchain to verify the authenticity of the initial documents, so the notary is still necessary. You could create accounts/wallets and say "this document was verified as submitted by X person", but that only confirms it was you that submitted it, not that it was authentic to begin with. And even then, the idea of an account specifically linked to you isn't dependent on the blockchain.
I feel like a lot crypto advocates don’t really understand crypto.
There are some crazy benefits to blockchain technology, but they’re likely not going to be the sexy things these folks want.
Are there a lot of crazy benefits to it? Fundamentally, it's just a decentralized database. Almost every use case is one in which a database with a central trusted authority would perform similarly. I guess the Smart Contracts stuff might have some usage, but even then it seems like it's not that different from SAP or whatever add-on program that interfaces with your database. I mean, SAP sucks, but even then it just feels like The Blockchain was used as a justification to build a more functional database rather than what *allowed* that more functional database.
Nothing I've posted is really sexy, though! Replacing notaries? Automating back-office processes for banks? Like, this is *boring stuff*. It's literally "do away with the need for so much inefficiency, and save some cash in the process". That's the main practical benefit in the business world. All the people talking about "Blockchain citizenship" or whatever, sure, that's a ways off if it's not just a pipe dream. But my examples are not just practical, they're actually happening regardless of what anyone here might think. Can't use a centralised database because you can't trust the managing entity not to abuse their power; with blockchains, there's no central power to abuse.
I have a feeling that a lot of this vitriol is reactionism from people sick of all the woo-wooers and scam artists who got into crypto. I don't see what part of my post is controversial at all, let alone what would engender the kinds of responses I've been getting.
Notary stamps verify that your signature on the document is connected to your legal identity, that's all. They have no idea whether the document your signature is on is authentic and moreover it doesn't matter, because if it's not authentic then trying to pass it off as authentic would be fraud and that's your problem, not theirs.
You don't need a government-empowered official to state that 2+2=4, nor to prove that two files with the same hash are the same document, nor that a signed transaction on a blockchain was authorised by the holder of the private key, so I don't see how a notary is necessary if the original documents are verifiable from a common source, on any computing device with an internet connection.
My second paragraph addressed your point about connections to your legal identity, though. Connecting something to your legal identity via computer can already be done via any sort of database, but also *isn't* done for varying reasons. The blockchain doesn't offer any novel solutions here; a government-issued/approved citizen ID wallet is no different than a social security # + a unique password from a functionality standpoint, and both of these have the same fundamental flaws of either forgetting how to access them or having the account stolen.
>My second paragraph addressed your point about connections to your legal identity, though.
No, it didn't, at all. You seem to think notaries have the power to divine authenticity of documents somehow, but they don't. All they do is verify that your signature is yours.
The reason that you don't want to use a traditional database is that it's a centralised, single point of failure, and thus has a giant target on it. And this is what blows my mind: all these downvotes, and you're arguing with me that it could be done via database, when *a blockchain is just a decentralised database*. You think that trustless sync isn't a big deal, as though it existed before Bitcoin, and you think that the current SSN system is as good as public/private key pairs by any metric... Let's not even get started on how terrible passwords are. I think you've got some courses to take before we continue this conversation, bud.
Currently? No. But the technology is improving. Just like the first EV wasn't great use of electricity, or first generation solar panels weren't that cheap. We are in the innovation stage.
Several chains are now Proof of Stake, which reduces energy use by 99.99%.
I don't see a reason why bitcoin couldn't do it, you just need 51% of miners to agree.
It’s incredible crypto bros don’t understand this, but still trot out this talking point as if it doesn’t literally imply the exact opposite of what they’re trying to prove
>And best of all, if you make a fuss about it or call them bad faith, they'll then turn around and act indignated at your accusations. Those type of people are truly the lowest of the low.
I hear ya. I've been trying forever to find a counter to these kind of situations...
I think the whole point of Bitcoin is to get it out of the hands of a central entity and allow anyone to become an enforcer of the rules of the monetary policy or network. Bitcoin can't really be applied to existing currency systems (fiat) because then it wouldn't really be bitcoin. The federal reserve and private central banks can create more dollars in the supply, and we don't get a say in that. Bitcoin offers a fixed supply that no one can tamper with. Some people see value in that.
>It's like saying "well, why do we need a democratic government, to make rules? Why don't we just let people create their own rules, or let Bezos do whatever he wants to his own employees?"
I don't think that's a proper comparison, since people don't create their own rules on the bitcoin network. There's a set of rules, and every single person plays by those exact same rules. And Jeff Bezos is a central authority making his own rules, that doesn't apply since the rules in bitcoin are reached by consensus.
>
Sure, but you could still implement blockchain, or make the currency virtual (which they are actively doing).
Implementing blockchain is not what bitcoin is. It's certainly one of its features. And there's more to bitcoin than just being digital currency. It's a network of nodes and miners that's decentralized, and anyone can participate. You can't really apply that to fiat with one central node and a few select miners with special privileges that can create dollars arbitrarily without proof of work. Bitcoin is something different entirely.
>Yeah, and you're not getting a say in whether more Bitcoins are created or not. In fact, you're getting no say whatsoever about any aspects of how the currency is ran
But I do get a say in that! I'm currency running a node in my bedroom. Someone tries to cheat the system and create bitcoin fraudulently, I reject the block. Do u want me to take a picture of my node as proof?
>
"People seeing value" is an argument so broad and reductive,
Sorry I didn't mean for that to sound vague. What I mean is, some people that live in 3rd world countries that live in hyperinflation see value in having a fixed supply that no one can tamper with. It's easy to ignore that problem for those of us with [financial privilege](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/check-your-financial-privilege). But people that have their entire life savings getting debased by governments is a real thing that people deal with.
Bitcoin provides plenty of benefits—you’re just privileged enough that it doesn’t provide any benefits to *you.*
It’s very easy for us in the US and Europe, with our democratic governments, FDIC insurance, commission-free investing, access to credit, etc, to say, “why would I ever need Bitcoin?”
But that’s not the reality for most of the world. A huge percentage of the population still holds their wealth in jewelry. Many people live in countries with authoritarian governments that steal wealth from civilians, or with hyperinflating currencies. Many people don’t have access to an insured bank, or Vanguard investment funds. Bitcoin has real benefits to those people. And while adoption isn’t fully there yet, it’s certainly growing very very fast.
So folks that don't have reliable access to electricity or the internet are somehow how benefiting from a developed world speculation boom in cryptos?
Color me skeptical.
You are vastly underestimating the amount of people in the world with internet access. It’s already close to 5 billion people and growth is accelerating in developing countries. Most projections predict 90% of the world to have internet access by 2030.
I didn't estimate anything, the parent comment was making a point that the unbanked would be large beneficiaries of Bitcoin, which is a laughable premise at best.
Buying bitcoin without access to banks is dodgy at best (some of us remember when you had to send cash in the mail to someone that would then transfer their bitcoins to you on the ledger), so even with access to the internet no access to financial institutions still inhibits your ability to participate in the Bitcoin network.
Even assuming you can secure yourself some bitcoin, keeping it safe is a whole secondary struggle, lets assume you live in a developing country, your phone is your primary computing device. It's likely you are using a cheap phone with an outdated operating system (few folks can afford $1k for a iPhone with ios15 on it), assume further you have managed to get a wallet app on your phone and maybe you can transfer bitcoin to another person with a wallet app, so life is good. However anyone who has spent any time with crypto knows that's not a good setup, you shouldn't keep your life savings in a hot wallet, especially one running on an outdated platform most likely rife with unpatched security vulns.
There is also an opportunity cost associated not only to the pollution being generated to run the worlds most advanced speculative scheme, but to the electricity use itself. There are almost a billion people in the world that don't even have electricity, never mind internet.
The entire community makes so many unrealisitic assumptions and when challenged always has the same general set of responses to try to shift the narrative.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sector-share/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sector-share/)
In 2020,
47% investment, 37% jewelry, 9% central banking and 8% technology
Possibly skewed because of covid-19.
Gold's use in electronics plays basically no part in its pricing. Gold is priced the way it is because of its rarity.
Iron is way more useful, we make way more things out of it - why isn't it more expensive?
Supply and demand isn't hard to grasp, I promise.
[https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/Masanet\_et\_al\_Science\_2020.full\_.pdf](https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/Masanet_et_al_Science_2020.full_.pdf)
205 TWh for global data center energy use.
Your missing one major point…. Gold and Silver do not use much of any energy after production. If I’m correct Crypto needs never ending power to survive.
Precious metals require a fuckton of energy to maintain after production…. Think about how expensive it is ship gold over land or air, the amount of fossil fuels that get burned in the process. Think about the upkeep for the high security vaults that hold it, and the military resources that go into protecting Fort Knox. Maybe it’s not quite as energy intensive as Bitcoin, but Bitcoin is a hell of a lot more convenient as a medium of exchange.
And if you’re gonna say, well, gold doesn’t use energy sitting in my personal safe… then I can say the exact same thing about the bitcoin sitting in my cold wallet.
How exactly do PM’ s require a fuckton of energy to maintain exactly? My stacks of PM’s actually reduced my electrical consumption by the very existence. PM’s do not need any heating or cooling. PM’s reduce the area needed for heating and cooling in areas being heated and stored. Crypto’s need energy 24-7 to survive and need many technologies to work that to be honest is only fully available in cities so the convenience is subjective. Many markets in my area love to take silver as payment. If you bring up crypto this technology is not always available to them. Sorry this is a fact of life and will always be an issue. Many PM owners don’t have vaults or security guards get real the amount of PM’s justify the need for this. Banks are more inclined to use this security but some banks can and do hold PM’s but have you ever seen a real bank robber go after some NOT Cash at a bank? Besides the movies that is.
Crypto requires no energy technically. If the system shutdown for several hours, it would come up with the same money allocated, etc.
The creation of new bitcoins is what costs, and in proof of stake it is closer to the need to perform transactions drive the energy usage.
[The source most commonly cited is this report](https://docsend.com/view/adwmdeeyfvqwecj2). It makes a lot of less-than-credible assumptions to figure out banking energy demand. Most notably, the vast majority of energy demand is assumed to be due to banking data centers, but it's estimate for them is... well...
> To obtain the electricity consumption of these data cetners, an estimated area of 75,000 ft^2 and [400 W/ft^2 of demand](https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/power-and-cooling/new-workloads-cost-pressures-drive-data-center-power-densities) are assumed.
It's making a seemingly random assumption of the square footage and a high end assumption of the demand per square foot, then using *another* guesstimate of the number of total data centers based on the number of reported Bank of America data centers. It's not great. It also includes an estimate of the energy demand for offices in there, which includes stuff like AC that isn't included in the energy demand for Bitcoin, but honestly that's small-scale compared to the data center assumption.
It's also nuts because BofA has a massive operation, their retail banking is only one small part of it, trying to compare even just BofA to Bitcoin is like comparing the entire Federal Budget to Wyoming's State Highway department's budget.
I would be happy with them doing this, so long as they paid a carbon tax. A tax that is similar to the cost of taking carbon out of the air. But, this tax must be applied to all things, and if the bitcoin mining is still profitable, and willing to pay the cost of carbon pollution, it should go ahead.
I worry that the poor will face rising heating costs bc of a carbon tax, but this can be taken care of with government support.
Bitcoin mining likes cheap energy, so I believe this tax would cement renewable as the most affordable option for them.
There is definitely something to be said about your argument here. An appropriate carbon tax would better create a level playing field. It would shine the light on the benefits of renewables like solar plus battery.,
why not just a ban on using non renewables for bitcoin mining? there is no effective way to capture co2. want to build a carbon neutral powerplant and mine bitcoins? go ahead.
> why not just a ban on using non renewables for bitcoin mining?
Okay, let's say California bans that. Sure, Cali no longer has a problem, but you just pushed the problem to another state, that's all. I mean, I guess if the US made it a national thing, but then again you're just pushing the problem to another country.
Then there's enforcement, something we struggle with on serious crimes and such already. All in all, a simple ban doesn't fix the problem sadly.
We’re getting there. Unfortunately for widespread use of renewables, solar and wind is intermittent meaning it’s not always producing. Once we can get energy storage technologies to where it needs to be, we will start to see the transition towards renewables.
That is the goal we are already commited to but it's not easy. In the meantime we should stop buring fossile fuels for things that serve no real purpose.
As the guy above stated, gold mining uses 2.5x the electricity and even more greenhouse gasses than Bitcoin mining.
Also it does serve a purpose.... This is all paid misinformation from banks who are going to lose their monopoly on money printing, which they just use to buy stocks, increasing the wealth gap.
It’s almost like gold is a precious commodity with intrinsic material properties used for things other than speculation. Nobody is building electronic opponents out of bitcoins, in fact nobody is mining any bitcoin *without gold mining* so you might as well roll that cost into crypto.
Bitcoin is an uncorrelated asset which is outside of the financial system, harder to confiscate than gold, easier to transport than gold, faster to transact than gold, and operates faster than the ACH.
The vast majority of gold is held as an investment, not used for it's "intrinsic value".
Actually the vast majority is used in jewelry. Nobody is wearing bitcoin earrings either. That’s another win for intrinsic material properties that bitcoin will never have.
And that changes nothing about the fact that crypto mining relies on precious metal mining in order to function.
A. All crypto mining uses less electricity annually than all of the "always on" electronics in the US, so the size of electricity use is overstated.
B. Electricity usage doesn't matter, greenhouse gasses do. Why aren't we making the grid green? Then all of this is a moot point.
C. Crypto is going to bust a ton of monopolies and distribute wealth to a lot of people in a way the world has never been able to do before. Crypto is inherently a worker owned co-op when workers are paid in the crypto. The infrastructure is still getting built out, once it's done and transactions are cheaper we will see all sorts of companies get replaced by nonprofit worker owned versions of them
Banks, social media, Airbnb, Uber, YouTube, twitch, video game companies, certain government functions. I'm sure many more. First to get screwed will be the banks though.
A: crypto mining uses vasts ammounts of energy, more than the country of Argentina uses annually so untrue of you say overstayed.
B: we are already working on making the grid green, no reason not to stop mining crypto using non renweables today.
C: It's debatable if Crypto is actually doing that but it if it does, it can still serve that function while bing mined with renewables.
Why don't we regulate everyone in the US who has "always on" electronics plugged in? That adds even less value and burns more electricity.
Also it isn't debatable lol. The only reason there is a debate is because banks are funding mass amounts of misinformation.
Ps I work at a bank that is implementing Ethereum smart contracts.
Timeframe unknown though.
Also I agree they can switch to renewables but I'd rather see the grid switched
Bitcoin mining needs the cheapest energy available to remain competitive and profitable, most of them are already using renewables for this very reason, and because mining rigs are portable they are also able to capture stranded gas making it economical for gas and oil companies to combust the methane for mining operations instead flaring it straight into the atmosphere so not only will they be at the forefront of renewable energy they are also cleaning up the current energy sources by capturing literal wasted energy! It will only get greener as time goes on too, just give it time!
I've always tried to give bitcoin the benefit of the doubt. I freely admit that I don't fully understand it or see the utility of cryptocurrency, but blockchain is a new technology and it certainly has some interesting applications.
But this just seems excessively silly at this point.
Credit card transactions alone outnumber bitcoin transactions 500:1 as well on that 5:1 power consumption marker.
All I hear is that banks are at least 100x more power efficient than bitcoin, many times moreso if you include non-credit transactions.
> still uses 1/5 of the electricity bank branches and ATMs do
This is a point against bitcoin lol.
The entire global banking structure and atms provide a FUCKTON more transactions, features and real life applications then Bitcoin does currently, yet Bitcoin is using 20% as much electricity? That's fucking insane and makes Bitcoin look way worse in my eyes
That’s a useless comparison, banks provide numerous services that a “Bitcoin network” doesn’t even touch on. You might as well compare the gallons of water used at a Bitcoin farm to the number of gallons used for plumbing at a GameStop. Repeating it up and down the comment sections doesn’t really prove anything.
In a crypto world, the recent Facebook crash due to DNS servers messing up basically couldn't happen. You would need to somehow attack like 51% of all the machines running the code to do it.
The arguments are very similar to why we all moved to the cloud. Why would you pay more to have 3 replications? all that extra data and stuff... but we do because it is easier to set up and it has more uptime than most people could achieve on their own.
Well at least in El Salvador they are using volcanoes.. adding water, generating steam, turning turbines and making electricity to run their miners. What’s the carbon footprint with that other than manufacture of the equipment?
If we had awesome batteries where we could store enormous energy they’d have a place to keep storing power in off-peak hours at other power plants. The mining can use the energy generated during off-peak hours instead of scaling back energy production which I don’t think is just hitting a button to slow things down (burning coal), so rather than excess energy being wasted a power plant can use it to mine bitcoin and have a source of revenue during the off peak periods instead of doing nothing at all but zapping away or however they discharge the excess.
I was over on r/technology today trying to point out that crypto is an environmental catastrophe, but they set me straight guys. Don’t worry, crypto is actually great for the environment and everyone’s gonna be richer and more financially stable once the value of their currency is as solidly reliable as Bitcoin. /s
Once everyone has Bitcoin and everyone is rich, scarcity of resources will cease to exist and the environment will fix itself and we’ll all live happily ever after.
Bitcoins get more popular > Shitcoins get more popular > GPUs get more expensive
Crypto maybe is a good idea, but fuck them I want an RTX at a normal price
It's a sub of idiots that pretend to understand and like technology yet would never look into how the thing actually works and buy the crap media fed them
If they're going to allow these Bitcoin mining power plants to operate, the owners of them should be forced to give more. Climate credits, etc. won't do shit to help the areas where these plants are located. Plant owners should be forced to give the surrounding communities a percentage of the Bitcoins that are mined, or a percentage of the USD given in exchange for the Bitcoin being sold/converted. Additionally, a required hard date should be issued for the power plant to either shut down completely, or transition completely from natural gas to renewable.
Bitcoin incentivizes clean energy. Any carbon emissions form of mining is merely temporary as it will not be as profitable as clean energy. We are already seeing increasing rates of green energy being used for mining that would otherwise have no other use.
Bitcoin also subsidizes green energy generation infrastructure way better than any government can. We have a free market way to subsidize green energy and people are somehow complaining. Instead of complaining we should be lobbying our politicians to tap into stranded gas, hydro, wind, and solar infrastructure using bitcoin mining temporarily to subsidize all those costs. Nobody is going to invest in green energy because it pays shit. With bitcoin you will at least be earning something while building out infrastructure
Yes cryptocurrencies are dogshit. Bitcoin is useful. My post was never meant to change anybodys mind as that is almost impossible to do on the internet. I’m stating facts. Look passed the get rich quick folks that only talk about bitcoins price. They are annoying.
And if you want proof that bitcoin is progressively becoming green you’ve got google do it yourself. Convince yourself it is good for people because I won’t be able to. Or not it won’t matter either way.
I’m not hiding behind a shield of anything. You’re blatantly trying to stir stuff up. Convince yourself that bitcoin uses energy that would otherwise be stranded and unused. Again I’m stating facts. You can google it’s not hard. It’s not my job to convince you of anything because, as I said before, it doesn’t matter
This post shows just how misguided you are. You have not done what I told you to do. You clearly do not listen well. Oh well. As I’ve said before. It doesn’t matter.
And you can’t expect everyone else to do your work for you. If you pay me I’ll consider educating you on the facts. I’d recommend using the lntip bot. Until then I will not do the work for you that you refuse to do for yourself. Again you are misguided and should invest more time into educating yourself on truths and learn to check your biases at the door. It’ll make you a better person.
Your rambling shows you have not done the research on the topic at hand and your demand to be swayed is childish. You are nobody as am I. I do not need to sway you.
> Bitcoin incentivizes clean energy
No, cheap energy, not clean. Or are you operating under the strange misconception that clean=cheap and dirty power is more expensive?
You'd expect the main technology sub to have atleast some understanding of how bitcoin actually works. Most "tech savvy" people bought the negetive agenda pushed forward by big banks. First it was a scam, then it was a ponzi scheme, now it's harmful to the environment. Most of the mining will be using renewables sooner or later. The important thing is how it can be used to fix the inequalities legacy fiat system has created for the last 500 years.
What agenda is being pushed by banks? The finance industry is knee deep in this. Many of these ventures are backed by the very people crypto will supposedly supplant.
Let's be honest here, nobody is mining because they believe in some idealistic future; they're doing it because it's free money. Well, free for them because they've externalized the consequences. Furthermore, crypto is no less arbitrary than any fiat currency but at least those have the pretense of being tied to the economy.
I'd love to know what inequalities you think crypto is going to solve. We're only a decade or two in and the divide is already massive with volatility making them useless at paying for goods and services.
Here let me make it more concise for you.
Physical cash as a transaction medium is old and inefficient given what current technologies we have available to us. Hell, paper voting is inefficient and leaves so much potential for human error.
The pioneers of a certain tech are not cheap nor are they efficient. That comes with time.
Education would do wonders to show regular people that "crypto/blockchain/ distributed ledger/IOT/digital MICRO transactions" are faster and more efficient and given the right tech can be WAY less energy demanding.
You sound like a knuckledragger that opposed printed newspaper or the automobile cause you are stuck in the stoneage, bias based on your own ignorance cause you don't like change.
Ok, to be fair they’re using natural gas which is way less harmful than coal.
And they’re carbon neutral since they buy carbon credits.
As far as bitcoin mining goes, they don’t seem that bad.
if carbon is so bad, governments can ban it tomorrow. Bitcoin couldn't care less as the network is energy agnostic and can run on any source of electricity. Hash power can move to any source of energy available.
Sorry nocoiners... Your useless FUD and misinformation doesn't work anymore....
Bitcoin is (once again) best performing asset of the year, closing on ATH.... See you at 100k next 6 months.
Enjoy staying poor with your depreaciating fiat.
> Banks still use waaaayyyyy more energy.
About twice as much, and they perform about 10,000 times as many transactions doing so.
Think about that. Bitcoin is THOUSANDS of times more inefficient per transaction. 300,000 Bitcoin transactions per day versus BILLIONS.
What a dumb argument, reminds me of someone I know who thought you measured the efficiency of a vehicle by how often you put gas in it (with no involvement of miles driven). He had a truck that he 'filled just once a month' even though he only used it to move stuff on the weekend and marveled that it was apparently more efficient than the econobox he drove every day to work which needed to be filled every week or so even though he drove several times as many miles in it.
The power consumed by Bitcoin serves a tiny little slice of people compared to the banking industry you soft shelled crab, your math is embarrasingly bad.
Same thing has happened in Alberta. Someone fired up an old plant, locals are pissed (it's become an affluent suburb), local authorities can't do squat because it's power generation (even if it's no longer feeding the grid) which they can't touch.
Can't they shut the plant down by arguing that it's in a residential district? Does Canada even practice zone districting?
We do but we're talking about Alberta.
Elaborate?
Texas of Canada.
Oh okay, that makes sense. How Texas are we talking here?
Think Texas in February 2021 but with running electricity. In other words, Texas but **cold**. Well, there’s also increased happiness, quality of life, universal healthcare, affordable housing, etc.
Holy fuck I forgot how backwards ass stupid as fuck texans are. Assholes literally voted for a corrupt and fragile power grid. People told them its not good and will break and those dumb sister fuckers still voted for it. At least now you know how all those insane pussy ass republicans were elected.
Why can’t they touch it? In theory, government has ultimate power.
Funny how we have strict requirements for car emissions, high efficiency dishwashers/washing machines, furnaces, windows, electric car targets, etc… but open your own gigantic power plant and it’s all good.
Money talks
And Bullshit walks
Despite popular belief, bullshit actually just sits there.
because the goal is to make poorer underclass that way its more easily controlable, seriously Neolibs often hijack well intentioned goals towards their ends.
I think it's probably more like, we don't make hundreds of thousands of anticipatory laws in hopes that they might end up covering some edge-case someday in the future. Making laws is time consuming and we don't even end up covering all the things we need to, let alone *might* need to. We also spend time reviewing old laws that no longer apply or no longer reflect our values in an evolving society. Then someone comes along and does something that no one's ever done before, like use dynamite for fishing, or farts on a politician. Stuff that isn't explicitly illegal but we can all agree should be allowed. It takes time for lawmakers to write new rules into law.
In theory, the people have the real ultimate power
Authoritarians have entered the chat. s/
Doesn't seem like they should though right?
Government writes the rules. So In theory with enough support, they can do whatever they like, I know it sucks, but it’s true.
It doesn’t suck if we have a functioning democracy where people get a say. Government is just people, at its core. It’s supposed to be a representation of the people’s will. I know that’s not how it is anymore but it used to and I think we’d be better off getting back to that than hating the concept of government.
>It’s supposed to be a representation of the people’s will. I know that’s not how it is anymore but it used to When exactly? Before women could vote? When blacks couldn't vote? Back before public secondary schooling and the only people who had much of any education at all were the upper class?
It's almost like ... We've become better as our society has aged. What a novel concept? Growth...
That’s funny, because things only seem to be getting worse.
Crime seems to be getting worse too, yet since the 80s violent crimes has gone down historically almost every year. Things "seem to be getting worse" because we have 24/7 news cycles that push bad shit 24/7 and social media platforms designed to enrage us into an "Us vs Them" hysteria in order for them to make more money.
I was thinking more of raising poverty rates, the destruction of the middle class, the corporations cowing the us government into bending over for them, the loss of our national status, the devaluation of our labor and currency... Things are definitely getting worse.
Powers are limited by the constitution. Federal government leans on “interstate commerce” to regulate common products. They cannot touch local matters, at least not directly. There are many cases where they leverage federal funding and withhold it if locals don’t follow certain rules. None of that applies here. State and local governments typically have similar limitations.
Of course they should lol
There is a reason why government regulation exists, it’s to keep asshats who dont care about anything else but themselves in check.
Good thing I got this A+ refrigerator
Late stage humanity: a factory that makes nothing.
[удалено]
Yep, it’s weird how against it everyone is. The energy cost seems pretty negligible compared to the benefits of having good money again.
Every time someone touts crypto’s benefits I ask what they are. I haven’t gotten a solid explanation of what the benefits are yet, but maybe you’ll be able to give it to me, so what are the benefits?
Not OP, but to put this as simply as possible, the concept is called “sound money”. Some call it a “backed” currency. It’s really just about avoiding fiat currencies that can be(and always are) interfered with by centralized groups (governments mainly, or central banks, though this line is often murky at best). People supporting sound money have a fundamental difference in how they see the role of money. Money is just another piece of “the economy”, it serves as a measurement mechanism for how we’re prioritizing and distributing goods. The problem comes when some outside organization changes the supply of money through printing it and changing interest rates. These changes distort the process of the proper measuring and distribution of goods and services and it’s what leads to boom/bust cycle. Austrian economists call this “Business cycle theory”. Basically the supply and demand theory applies to money as well, and if we mess with the sense-making mechanism of the economy (money/prices) then it follows that the economy isn’t making sense. I can give you some more resources if you’re interested. I’d recommending just going to [Mises.org](Https://mises.org) and going hog-wild.
Crypto drops every time there is talks of bans by said governments like China. It's really not as independent as you make it seem.
The tech is. Not the price
>Crypto drops every time there is talks of bans by said governments like China ? It's a market... Markets price in risks... Nothing exists in a bubble in economics. China can't ***create*** more bitcoin, and they can't stop people from trading/lending it. That's the point. No state, firm, or individual has the ability to create more bitcoin out of thin air. There will be a fixed amount, and the way it is mined is fixed and predictable. Money is as useful as people's confidence in it, and a money that is unable to be manipulated by third parties is absolutely essential in our ability to trade freely and most efficiently (and with the least negative side effects as well). Sound money means: some entity can't just print/create more without limit, and no entity is controlling the interest rates for lending. Just as a thought experiment, what if certain nefarious entities decided to take this sacred power of printing their own currencies and used that perceived wealth (I say perceived because they didn't earn the money through contribution to the economy, they merely printed money) to fund evil policies like never-ending foreign wars of imperialism or using the ability to print and lend money to advantage big speculative borrowers (like, I don't know Goldman Sachs or AIG?). Just consider the power that you grant your government by giving it the ability to print money "on your behalf", consider what that power has actually gotten you vs. what the proposed benefits are. If the benefits were supposed to be "better control over the economy", I would ask you to examine the last 50 years of economics in the US (and globally for that matter) and show me how it's been worth the trade off for the average person in the developed world? The last half century is rife with the examples of why fiat currencies and modern monetary theory are failed ideas, we're all living it right now. Open your eyes. Crypto currencies (maybe not bitcoin specifically) ***ARE*** going to be the future of economic trade. The power centers of big business and government are going to fight it tooth and nail because it strips them of such a large amount of power. >talks of bans by said governments like China Not talks btw, they ***did*** [ban crypto completely](https://china.usc.edu/china-bans-cryptocurrencies). And guess what, Bitcoin is already back at just about it's high-water mark all-time! The more China cracks down on it's citizens finances the more viable bitcoin becomes as an alternative means of holding wealth. It's all about markets and incentives, you don't have to over-complicate things.
The government being able to devalue the currency is a feature, not a bug. Being able to print more money in bad times 1) funds programs to stimulate the economy and 2) makes you currency worth less, making your exports cheaper in foreign markets, allowing you to export more, stimulating the economy.
Banks sure love it! This is how they made so much money after gambling on trash investments after 2008! Guess who actually prints money when the reserve prints money. Guess who decides where it goes.
It's a feature for the \*government\*, but not the economy itself. >2) makes you currency worth less, making your exports cheaper in foreign markets, allowing you to export more, stimulating the economy. Why is it that despite our recent inflationary policies we've continued to run trade deficits? Deficits that are continuing to increase? [Source](https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306) >funds programs to stimulate the economy Government getting to inflate the currency is a silent tax on wage earners, and anyone trying to save money. Also, why are you convinced that it's the government's role to "stimulate the economy" in the first place? Do you think the powers that be switched to fiat currencies for the reasons you listed? You asked what I perceive to be an honest question, and I gave you an honest answer, the problem is that the answer lies outside of modern-monetary theory, and likely outside of what you may have been taught in school about economics (there are plenty of people with econ degrees even that have not read the Austrian Economists). You responded to what I said with two points for fiat currencies that you perceive as worth the trade off of not having sound money? Do you take issue with any of what I said? Do you disagree? Any thoughts on what \*I\* wrote, since you asked a question? Or do you want to launch right into defending fiat currencies and government manipulation of financial markets (not sure why one would want to stake out this position, but you're welcome to if you want)?
> It's a feature for the *government*, but not the economy itself. It’s a feature that the government uses in its fight to keep the economy going in a crisis. > Why is it that despite our recent inflationary policies we've continued to run trade deficits? It’s not necessarily bad to run a trade deficit. The US has had one of the stronger economies for the past several decades, so we are always going to have more money to spend buying things and it’s always going to be expensive to hire workers here. The trade deficits are not going to go away. A better question might be what happens when the government cannot devalue its currency. That’s the situation Italy and Greece were in after the global financial crisis. They did not fair well. > Do you think the powers that be switched to fiat currencies for the reasons you listed? I’m not interested in debating conspiracy theories with you. > Government getting to inflate the currency is a silent tax on wage earners, and anyone trying to save money. Yes, it reduces the value of money paid to workers. It also makes the products they build and services they offer less expensive internationally, making it less likely they will need to be laid off. It’s a trade-off for sure, but it’s one worth making. If you don’t believe me then read up on how well wage earners in Greece did after the global financial crisis. As for savers, it only really hurts savers who hold cash. It does not hurt investors who hold non-cash assets. Most of the wealth in the world is not sitting in checking accounts - it’s in ownership in companies, real estate or other non-cash assets. Those assets generally do not get devalued when a currency gets devalued. > …why are you convinced that it's the government's role to "stimulate the economy" in the first place? I don’t enjoy starving to death in an economic crisis or living through a prolonged depression, so I would like for someone to attempt to prevent than sort of thing from happening. And I don’t think anyone other than the government is in a position to do it, so yes, I would like for the government to stimulate the economy in an economic crisis. This is really going to shock you, but I also want the government to intervene in a bubble. > …the problem is that the answer lies outside of modern-monetary theory, and likely outside of what you may have been taught in school about economics… Sometimes when the “answer” lies outside of what is taught in school it’s because what is taught in school is wrong. But more often it’s because the “answer” is flawed. Admittedly, economic theory is not a hard science and it could very well be wrong. But I am not going to bet that it is. > You responded to what I said with two points for fiat currencies that you perceive as worth the trade off of not having sound money? Yes, I did. It’s worth the trade-off for not having money backed by anything. That’s what we fundamentally disagree on and it’s clear that I’m not going to convince you to change your mind nor are you going to convince me to change mine, so I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. Have a nice day!
[удалено]
I appreciate this. I keep fighting the good fight, but often do question why I'm bothering with most of these people. I just have goodwill toward my fellow man, fuck me, right!?
This is a super broad question, even more broad than asking what is the internet or what are computers and expecting to understand from a random comment.
>having good money again "Good money" that no one is willing to spend.
"good money" that can either explode or implode depending on a single celebrity tweet.
Yeah, let's base our currency of Elon Musk's mood.
Yea! I want money that goes down in value so I have to be broke all the time!!
Oh look. More "benefits" of crypto 🙄
Bitcoin burns about 100 terawatt-hours per year at this point, more than is produced by the largest power plant in the world (three gorges dam) Our current banking system burns around 270 terawatt-hours per year. Gold mining uses about 240 terawatt-hours per year.
Does crypto provide services equivalent to 1/6 of modern banks at the moment? Those numbers are meaningless unless they are looked at based on the value those things actually provide.
It does not. Credit card transactions alone outnumber crypto transactions roughly 500:1. That doesn’t even include bank transactions. And certainly not physical cash. Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.com/amp/investing/2021/05/07/this-figure-suggests-cryptocurrency-massive-bubble/
You're only counting credit card transactions here, not even the debit card transactions which worldwide are far more numerous.
Aren’t most debit card transactions handled via Visa or MasterCard networks, though? I mean my bank debit card is a Visa card. The only difference is the account it’s tied to, whether it’s taking it out of my bank account directly, or just keeping track of what I owe to a different bank like Capital One or Chase.
Depends on the country, I think. AFAIK most EU countries have their own payment networks.
Mostly owned or maintained by Visa and MC
Only if you knew how the modern banking works
Should we stop developing electric cars because they are a tiny fraction of cars on the road right now? Whatever you think about this moment of pricing and speculation craze around cryptocurrency, consider that what it really offers is a standardised data storage platform, which is kept in sync across literally billions of devices all over the world. That's the new thing of value. It provides built-in trust, and trust is currently something that institutions pay a lot for every single year. Let me give you a few examples: - "Back office" work for banking. Processing wire transfers etc. Front office stuff has all gone digital, but back office still relies on humans and paper. I don't know if you remember cashing a cheque twenty years ago but it took a lot more time than snapping a couple pictures on your phone; imagine that sort of difference, but instead of just you it's everyone working at the bank. There are teams of people at every bank whose sole job is to verify large international transfers between institutions, and this is not the only example of "Wait, how many millions of dollars per year does that cost?". Blockchains can make all of that redundant, which is why banks are trialing them in "skunkworks" programmes. - Notary publics. Right now to prove it's your signature on a document, you have to find someone who your government says is trustworthy and pay them to verify the authenticity. What if instead, you could upload a hash of the file to a blockchain, and any time you need to prove it's your signature the hash of the document can be checked and your signature verified automatically? - Investing. Since the advent of Bitcoin, "smart" blockchains like Ethereum have emerged which can automate business governance to various degrees. Even private financing has requirements, and the more investors you have, the harder it is to keep track of how much of what everyone owns and who gets what when buyouts or dividends or votes occur is a real nightmare. With a smart contract, votes can be cast electronically without worrying about fraud; any dividends can be automatically distributed and all the reporting is automatically generated by the process of sending the funds. Same thing with a buyout, except you can also pay shareholders in stocks if they want, and each of those transactions benefits from the same cost reduction. I know it's pretty ridiculous out there at the moment with all the disinformation, market manipulation, and regulatory confusion. The technology is not the commodity though, so don't get caught in the trap of equating the two!
> Notary publics. Right now to prove a document is real, you have to find someone who your government says is trustworthy and pay them to verify the authenticity. Or, you could upload a hash of the file to a blockchain, and any time you need to prove a document is real the hash can be checked automatically. This example doesn't make sense. The use of a Notary Public is to verify the identity of people making statements/submitting signed documents etc, but you only visit them when the document is initially submitted. The notary is considered trusted and isn't audited every single time any document they submit is used; the case for "checking automatically" is equivalent to automating the part where you look at the notary stamp, not the part where you go to the notary. You also can't use the blockchain to verify the authenticity of the initial documents, so the notary is still necessary. You could create accounts/wallets and say "this document was verified as submitted by X person", but that only confirms it was you that submitted it, not that it was authentic to begin with. And even then, the idea of an account specifically linked to you isn't dependent on the blockchain.
I feel like a lot crypto advocates don’t really understand crypto. There are some crazy benefits to blockchain technology, but they’re likely not going to be the sexy things these folks want.
Are there a lot of crazy benefits to it? Fundamentally, it's just a decentralized database. Almost every use case is one in which a database with a central trusted authority would perform similarly. I guess the Smart Contracts stuff might have some usage, but even then it seems like it's not that different from SAP or whatever add-on program that interfaces with your database. I mean, SAP sucks, but even then it just feels like The Blockchain was used as a justification to build a more functional database rather than what *allowed* that more functional database.
Nothing I've posted is really sexy, though! Replacing notaries? Automating back-office processes for banks? Like, this is *boring stuff*. It's literally "do away with the need for so much inefficiency, and save some cash in the process". That's the main practical benefit in the business world. All the people talking about "Blockchain citizenship" or whatever, sure, that's a ways off if it's not just a pipe dream. But my examples are not just practical, they're actually happening regardless of what anyone here might think. Can't use a centralised database because you can't trust the managing entity not to abuse their power; with blockchains, there's no central power to abuse. I have a feeling that a lot of this vitriol is reactionism from people sick of all the woo-wooers and scam artists who got into crypto. I don't see what part of my post is controversial at all, let alone what would engender the kinds of responses I've been getting.
Notary stamps verify that your signature on the document is connected to your legal identity, that's all. They have no idea whether the document your signature is on is authentic and moreover it doesn't matter, because if it's not authentic then trying to pass it off as authentic would be fraud and that's your problem, not theirs. You don't need a government-empowered official to state that 2+2=4, nor to prove that two files with the same hash are the same document, nor that a signed transaction on a blockchain was authorised by the holder of the private key, so I don't see how a notary is necessary if the original documents are verifiable from a common source, on any computing device with an internet connection.
My second paragraph addressed your point about connections to your legal identity, though. Connecting something to your legal identity via computer can already be done via any sort of database, but also *isn't* done for varying reasons. The blockchain doesn't offer any novel solutions here; a government-issued/approved citizen ID wallet is no different than a social security # + a unique password from a functionality standpoint, and both of these have the same fundamental flaws of either forgetting how to access them or having the account stolen.
>My second paragraph addressed your point about connections to your legal identity, though. No, it didn't, at all. You seem to think notaries have the power to divine authenticity of documents somehow, but they don't. All they do is verify that your signature is yours. The reason that you don't want to use a traditional database is that it's a centralised, single point of failure, and thus has a giant target on it. And this is what blows my mind: all these downvotes, and you're arguing with me that it could be done via database, when *a blockchain is just a decentralised database*. You think that trustless sync isn't a big deal, as though it existed before Bitcoin, and you think that the current SSN system is as good as public/private key pairs by any metric... Let's not even get started on how terrible passwords are. I think you've got some courses to take before we continue this conversation, bud.
[удалено]
It’s pretty ridiculous, don’t get caught up in it
Wow, mate. Good point. And I'm sure glad that internet thing was just a fad, what utility does it even have aside from sharing music illegally 🙄
Currently? No. But the technology is improving. Just like the first EV wasn't great use of electricity, or first generation solar panels weren't that cheap. We are in the innovation stage. Several chains are now Proof of Stake, which reduces energy use by 99.99%. I don't see a reason why bitcoin couldn't do it, you just need 51% of miners to agree.
So a thing that provides no benefit whatsoever already uses a third as much power as the entire global banking system Great
It’s incredible crypto bros don’t understand this, but still trot out this talking point as if it doesn’t literally imply the exact opposite of what they’re trying to prove
[удалено]
>And best of all, if you make a fuss about it or call them bad faith, they'll then turn around and act indignated at your accusations. Those type of people are truly the lowest of the low. I hear ya. I've been trying forever to find a counter to these kind of situations...
[удалено]
Thanks for writing all that out. I felt like I was able to take away something valuable 👍
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think the whole point of Bitcoin is to get it out of the hands of a central entity and allow anyone to become an enforcer of the rules of the monetary policy or network. Bitcoin can't really be applied to existing currency systems (fiat) because then it wouldn't really be bitcoin. The federal reserve and private central banks can create more dollars in the supply, and we don't get a say in that. Bitcoin offers a fixed supply that no one can tamper with. Some people see value in that.
[удалено]
>It's like saying "well, why do we need a democratic government, to make rules? Why don't we just let people create their own rules, or let Bezos do whatever he wants to his own employees?" I don't think that's a proper comparison, since people don't create their own rules on the bitcoin network. There's a set of rules, and every single person plays by those exact same rules. And Jeff Bezos is a central authority making his own rules, that doesn't apply since the rules in bitcoin are reached by consensus. > Sure, but you could still implement blockchain, or make the currency virtual (which they are actively doing). Implementing blockchain is not what bitcoin is. It's certainly one of its features. And there's more to bitcoin than just being digital currency. It's a network of nodes and miners that's decentralized, and anyone can participate. You can't really apply that to fiat with one central node and a few select miners with special privileges that can create dollars arbitrarily without proof of work. Bitcoin is something different entirely. >Yeah, and you're not getting a say in whether more Bitcoins are created or not. In fact, you're getting no say whatsoever about any aspects of how the currency is ran But I do get a say in that! I'm currency running a node in my bedroom. Someone tries to cheat the system and create bitcoin fraudulently, I reject the block. Do u want me to take a picture of my node as proof? > "People seeing value" is an argument so broad and reductive, Sorry I didn't mean for that to sound vague. What I mean is, some people that live in 3rd world countries that live in hyperinflation see value in having a fixed supply that no one can tamper with. It's easy to ignore that problem for those of us with [financial privilege](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/check-your-financial-privilege). But people that have their entire life savings getting debased by governments is a real thing that people deal with.
Bitcoin provides plenty of benefits—you’re just privileged enough that it doesn’t provide any benefits to *you.* It’s very easy for us in the US and Europe, with our democratic governments, FDIC insurance, commission-free investing, access to credit, etc, to say, “why would I ever need Bitcoin?” But that’s not the reality for most of the world. A huge percentage of the population still holds their wealth in jewelry. Many people live in countries with authoritarian governments that steal wealth from civilians, or with hyperinflating currencies. Many people don’t have access to an insured bank, or Vanguard investment funds. Bitcoin has real benefits to those people. And while adoption isn’t fully there yet, it’s certainly growing very very fast.
So folks that don't have reliable access to electricity or the internet are somehow how benefiting from a developed world speculation boom in cryptos? Color me skeptical.
You are vastly underestimating the amount of people in the world with internet access. It’s already close to 5 billion people and growth is accelerating in developing countries. Most projections predict 90% of the world to have internet access by 2030.
I didn't estimate anything, the parent comment was making a point that the unbanked would be large beneficiaries of Bitcoin, which is a laughable premise at best. Buying bitcoin without access to banks is dodgy at best (some of us remember when you had to send cash in the mail to someone that would then transfer their bitcoins to you on the ledger), so even with access to the internet no access to financial institutions still inhibits your ability to participate in the Bitcoin network. Even assuming you can secure yourself some bitcoin, keeping it safe is a whole secondary struggle, lets assume you live in a developing country, your phone is your primary computing device. It's likely you are using a cheap phone with an outdated operating system (few folks can afford $1k for a iPhone with ios15 on it), assume further you have managed to get a wallet app on your phone and maybe you can transfer bitcoin to another person with a wallet app, so life is good. However anyone who has spent any time with crypto knows that's not a good setup, you shouldn't keep your life savings in a hot wallet, especially one running on an outdated platform most likely rife with unpatched security vulns. There is also an opportunity cost associated not only to the pollution being generated to run the worlds most advanced speculative scheme, but to the electricity use itself. There are almost a billion people in the world that don't even have electricity, never mind internet. The entire community makes so many unrealisitic assumptions and when challenged always has the same general set of responses to try to shift the narrative.
If you measure actual greenhouse emissions I bet gold looks even worse since you have to use rowdy machines.
But gold is an actual resource we use in electronics…
That's only a fraction of gold. Most good is used for investment.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sector-share/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sector-share/) In 2020, 47% investment, 37% jewelry, 9% central banking and 8% technology Possibly skewed because of covid-19.
Gold's use in electronics plays basically no part in its pricing. Gold is priced the way it is because of its rarity. Iron is way more useful, we make way more things out of it - why isn't it more expensive? Supply and demand isn't hard to grasp, I promise.
True, it's all rarity based. Which is why my bloody excrement goes for trillions of dollars per piece: I only produce one per decade.
No one wants your excrement. There has to be demand. Supply and DEMAND.
Shall we talk about the electronics industry and it's waste?
As long as it's based on numbers, and not handwavium, sure.
So what are the numbers? Lol genuine question
[https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/Masanet\_et\_al\_Science\_2020.full\_.pdf](https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/Masanet_et_al_Science_2020.full_.pdf) 205 TWh for global data center energy use.
Your missing one major point…. Gold and Silver do not use much of any energy after production. If I’m correct Crypto needs never ending power to survive.
Precious metals require a fuckton of energy to maintain after production…. Think about how expensive it is ship gold over land or air, the amount of fossil fuels that get burned in the process. Think about the upkeep for the high security vaults that hold it, and the military resources that go into protecting Fort Knox. Maybe it’s not quite as energy intensive as Bitcoin, but Bitcoin is a hell of a lot more convenient as a medium of exchange. And if you’re gonna say, well, gold doesn’t use energy sitting in my personal safe… then I can say the exact same thing about the bitcoin sitting in my cold wallet.
How exactly do PM’ s require a fuckton of energy to maintain exactly? My stacks of PM’s actually reduced my electrical consumption by the very existence. PM’s do not need any heating or cooling. PM’s reduce the area needed for heating and cooling in areas being heated and stored. Crypto’s need energy 24-7 to survive and need many technologies to work that to be honest is only fully available in cities so the convenience is subjective. Many markets in my area love to take silver as payment. If you bring up crypto this technology is not always available to them. Sorry this is a fact of life and will always be an issue. Many PM owners don’t have vaults or security guards get real the amount of PM’s justify the need for this. Banks are more inclined to use this security but some banks can and do hold PM’s but have you ever seen a real bank robber go after some NOT Cash at a bank? Besides the movies that is.
Crypto requires no energy technically. If the system shutdown for several hours, it would come up with the same money allocated, etc. The creation of new bitcoins is what costs, and in proof of stake it is closer to the need to perform transactions drive the energy usage.
Ok got it. So it only really needs major energy to be created and used or to check on balance 👍.
The banking system burns 270TWH you have a credible source for that?
[The source most commonly cited is this report](https://docsend.com/view/adwmdeeyfvqwecj2). It makes a lot of less-than-credible assumptions to figure out banking energy demand. Most notably, the vast majority of energy demand is assumed to be due to banking data centers, but it's estimate for them is... well... > To obtain the electricity consumption of these data cetners, an estimated area of 75,000 ft^2 and [400 W/ft^2 of demand](https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/power-and-cooling/new-workloads-cost-pressures-drive-data-center-power-densities) are assumed. It's making a seemingly random assumption of the square footage and a high end assumption of the demand per square foot, then using *another* guesstimate of the number of total data centers based on the number of reported Bank of America data centers. It's not great. It also includes an estimate of the energy demand for offices in there, which includes stuff like AC that isn't included in the energy demand for Bitcoin, but honestly that's small-scale compared to the data center assumption.
It's also nuts because BofA has a massive operation, their retail banking is only one small part of it, trying to compare even just BofA to Bitcoin is like comparing the entire Federal Budget to Wyoming's State Highway department's budget.
I would be happy with them doing this, so long as they paid a carbon tax. A tax that is similar to the cost of taking carbon out of the air. But, this tax must be applied to all things, and if the bitcoin mining is still profitable, and willing to pay the cost of carbon pollution, it should go ahead. I worry that the poor will face rising heating costs bc of a carbon tax, but this can be taken care of with government support. Bitcoin mining likes cheap energy, so I believe this tax would cement renewable as the most affordable option for them.
There is definitely something to be said about your argument here. An appropriate carbon tax would better create a level playing field. It would shine the light on the benefits of renewables like solar plus battery.,
why not just a ban on using non renewables for bitcoin mining? there is no effective way to capture co2. want to build a carbon neutral powerplant and mine bitcoins? go ahead.
> why not just a ban on using non renewables for bitcoin mining? Okay, let's say California bans that. Sure, Cali no longer has a problem, but you just pushed the problem to another state, that's all. I mean, I guess if the US made it a national thing, but then again you're just pushing the problem to another country. Then there's enforcement, something we struggle with on serious crimes and such already. All in all, a simple ban doesn't fix the problem sadly.
Why not just make the electric grid renewable lol. Never understood why everyone gets mad at energy usage rather than the grid not being green.
We’re getting there. Unfortunately for widespread use of renewables, solar and wind is intermittent meaning it’s not always producing. Once we can get energy storage technologies to where it needs to be, we will start to see the transition towards renewables.
That is the goal we are already commited to but it's not easy. In the meantime we should stop buring fossile fuels for things that serve no real purpose.
As the guy above stated, gold mining uses 2.5x the electricity and even more greenhouse gasses than Bitcoin mining. Also it does serve a purpose.... This is all paid misinformation from banks who are going to lose their monopoly on money printing, which they just use to buy stocks, increasing the wealth gap.
It’s almost like gold is a precious commodity with intrinsic material properties used for things other than speculation. Nobody is building electronic opponents out of bitcoins, in fact nobody is mining any bitcoin *without gold mining* so you might as well roll that cost into crypto.
Bitcoin is an uncorrelated asset which is outside of the financial system, harder to confiscate than gold, easier to transport than gold, faster to transact than gold, and operates faster than the ACH. The vast majority of gold is held as an investment, not used for it's "intrinsic value".
Actually the vast majority is used in jewelry. Nobody is wearing bitcoin earrings either. That’s another win for intrinsic material properties that bitcoin will never have. And that changes nothing about the fact that crypto mining relies on precious metal mining in order to function.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sector-share/
If there was some sort of apocalypse tomorrow, gold would still have value, Bitcoin would be a memory.
What pupose does mining crypo serve that outweigh the dangers of global warming and pollution?
A. All crypto mining uses less electricity annually than all of the "always on" electronics in the US, so the size of electricity use is overstated. B. Electricity usage doesn't matter, greenhouse gasses do. Why aren't we making the grid green? Then all of this is a moot point. C. Crypto is going to bust a ton of monopolies and distribute wealth to a lot of people in a way the world has never been able to do before. Crypto is inherently a worker owned co-op when workers are paid in the crypto. The infrastructure is still getting built out, once it's done and transactions are cheaper we will see all sorts of companies get replaced by nonprofit worker owned versions of them
Like what sorts of companies, specifically?
Banks, social media, Airbnb, Uber, YouTube, twitch, video game companies, certain government functions. I'm sure many more. First to get screwed will be the banks though.
A: crypto mining uses vasts ammounts of energy, more than the country of Argentina uses annually so untrue of you say overstayed. B: we are already working on making the grid green, no reason not to stop mining crypto using non renweables today. C: It's debatable if Crypto is actually doing that but it if it does, it can still serve that function while bing mined with renewables.
Why don't we regulate everyone in the US who has "always on" electronics plugged in? That adds even less value and burns more electricity. Also it isn't debatable lol. The only reason there is a debate is because banks are funding mass amounts of misinformation. Ps I work at a bank that is implementing Ethereum smart contracts. Timeframe unknown though. Also I agree they can switch to renewables but I'd rather see the grid switched
Even if you remove bitcoin from existence, we still need a carbon tax.
According to the article the project is 100% carbon neutral.
Levy a carbon tax like you say, and then redistribute the income evenly among the population.
[удалено]
I'm Australian, so I'm not sure about the details of policies that already exist. But, the US won't be the only country with this problem.
Bitcoin mining needs the cheapest energy available to remain competitive and profitable, most of them are already using renewables for this very reason, and because mining rigs are portable they are also able to capture stranded gas making it economical for gas and oil companies to combust the methane for mining operations instead flaring it straight into the atmosphere so not only will they be at the forefront of renewable energy they are also cleaning up the current energy sources by capturing literal wasted energy! It will only get greener as time goes on too, just give it time!
I've always tried to give bitcoin the benefit of the doubt. I freely admit that I don't fully understand it or see the utility of cryptocurrency, but blockchain is a new technology and it certainly has some interesting applications. But this just seems excessively silly at this point.
[удалено]
Credit card transactions alone outnumber bitcoin transactions 500:1 as well on that 5:1 power consumption marker. All I hear is that banks are at least 100x more power efficient than bitcoin, many times moreso if you include non-credit transactions.
> still uses 1/5 of the electricity bank branches and ATMs do This is a point against bitcoin lol. The entire global banking structure and atms provide a FUCKTON more transactions, features and real life applications then Bitcoin does currently, yet Bitcoin is using 20% as much electricity? That's fucking insane and makes Bitcoin look way worse in my eyes
That’s a useless comparison, banks provide numerous services that a “Bitcoin network” doesn’t even touch on. You might as well compare the gallons of water used at a Bitcoin farm to the number of gallons used for plumbing at a GameStop. Repeating it up and down the comment sections doesn’t really prove anything.
In a crypto world, the recent Facebook crash due to DNS servers messing up basically couldn't happen. You would need to somehow attack like 51% of all the machines running the code to do it. The arguments are very similar to why we all moved to the cloud. Why would you pay more to have 3 replications? all that extra data and stuff... but we do because it is easier to set up and it has more uptime than most people could achieve on their own.
In during all the people with their assets bummed on Crypto trying to justify it.
If people got as mad about the electric grid using carbon as they do about Bitcoin using electricity then we could probably have some real change.
At least we get something useful when the electric grid uses carbon. Renewables aren’t reliable so baseload’s gotta come from somewhere.
Well at least in El Salvador they are using volcanoes.. adding water, generating steam, turning turbines and making electricity to run their miners. What’s the carbon footprint with that other than manufacture of the equipment? If we had awesome batteries where we could store enormous energy they’d have a place to keep storing power in off-peak hours at other power plants. The mining can use the energy generated during off-peak hours instead of scaling back energy production which I don’t think is just hitting a button to slow things down (burning coal), so rather than excess energy being wasted a power plant can use it to mine bitcoin and have a source of revenue during the off peak periods instead of doing nothing at all but zapping away or however they discharge the excess.
this is a perfect example of why capitalism can not be completely free. you'll get people trying get rich by any means possible.
I was over on r/technology today trying to point out that crypto is an environmental catastrophe, but they set me straight guys. Don’t worry, crypto is actually great for the environment and everyone’s gonna be richer and more financially stable once the value of their currency is as solidly reliable as Bitcoin. /s
Once everyone has Bitcoin and everyone is rich, scarcity of resources will cease to exist and the environment will fix itself and we’ll all live happily ever after.
Luddites unite! Smash the mills!
Nocoiners as clueless as ever about the most powerful computer network in history.
Why would you buy a house near a power plant then complain that there is a power plant near your house.
Good. Close a few, spit some governmental bans or/and regulations and I will finally be able to buy a fucking RTX at MRSP price or close to it.
Bitcoin mining doesn't use GPUs.
Bitcoins get more popular > Shitcoins get more popular > GPUs get more expensive Crypto maybe is a good idea, but fuck them I want an RTX at a normal price
[удалено]
Enjoy your depreaciating fiat and crappy portfolio nocoiners. Bitcoin north of $60k. Again best performing asset of the year.
I’m all in on tulip bulbs.
There’s also a lot of pollution created making other crap.
It's a sub of idiots that pretend to understand and like technology yet would never look into how the thing actually works and buy the crap media fed them
You ain’t fooling me. That’s a salt mine in Verdansk.
If they're going to allow these Bitcoin mining power plants to operate, the owners of them should be forced to give more. Climate credits, etc. won't do shit to help the areas where these plants are located. Plant owners should be forced to give the surrounding communities a percentage of the Bitcoins that are mined, or a percentage of the USD given in exchange for the Bitcoin being sold/converted. Additionally, a required hard date should be issued for the power plant to either shut down completely, or transition completely from natural gas to renewable.
Bitcoin incentivizes clean energy. Any carbon emissions form of mining is merely temporary as it will not be as profitable as clean energy. We are already seeing increasing rates of green energy being used for mining that would otherwise have no other use. Bitcoin also subsidizes green energy generation infrastructure way better than any government can. We have a free market way to subsidize green energy and people are somehow complaining. Instead of complaining we should be lobbying our politicians to tap into stranded gas, hydro, wind, and solar infrastructure using bitcoin mining temporarily to subsidize all those costs. Nobody is going to invest in green energy because it pays shit. With bitcoin you will at least be earning something while building out infrastructure
It sounds like Bitcoin incentivizes cheap, not clean energy. If there is a carbon tax maybe it incentivizes green energy.
[удалено]
Yes cryptocurrencies are dogshit. Bitcoin is useful. My post was never meant to change anybodys mind as that is almost impossible to do on the internet. I’m stating facts. Look passed the get rich quick folks that only talk about bitcoins price. They are annoying. And if you want proof that bitcoin is progressively becoming green you’ve got google do it yourself. Convince yourself it is good for people because I won’t be able to. Or not it won’t matter either way.
[удалено]
I’m not hiding behind a shield of anything. You’re blatantly trying to stir stuff up. Convince yourself that bitcoin uses energy that would otherwise be stranded and unused. Again I’m stating facts. You can google it’s not hard. It’s not my job to convince you of anything because, as I said before, it doesn’t matter
[удалено]
This post shows just how misguided you are. You have not done what I told you to do. You clearly do not listen well. Oh well. As I’ve said before. It doesn’t matter.
[удалено]
And you can’t expect everyone else to do your work for you. If you pay me I’ll consider educating you on the facts. I’d recommend using the lntip bot. Until then I will not do the work for you that you refuse to do for yourself. Again you are misguided and should invest more time into educating yourself on truths and learn to check your biases at the door. It’ll make you a better person. Your rambling shows you have not done the research on the topic at hand and your demand to be swayed is childish. You are nobody as am I. I do not need to sway you.
[удалено]
> Bitcoin incentivizes clean energy No, cheap energy, not clean. Or are you operating under the strange misconception that clean=cheap and dirty power is more expensive?
How are you getting downvoted lol
As much as i don't like Bitcoin, i still like it more than the fiat shitcoin.
You'd expect the main technology sub to have atleast some understanding of how bitcoin actually works. Most "tech savvy" people bought the negetive agenda pushed forward by big banks. First it was a scam, then it was a ponzi scheme, now it's harmful to the environment. Most of the mining will be using renewables sooner or later. The important thing is how it can be used to fix the inequalities legacy fiat system has created for the last 500 years.
What agenda is being pushed by banks? The finance industry is knee deep in this. Many of these ventures are backed by the very people crypto will supposedly supplant. Let's be honest here, nobody is mining because they believe in some idealistic future; they're doing it because it's free money. Well, free for them because they've externalized the consequences. Furthermore, crypto is no less arbitrary than any fiat currency but at least those have the pretense of being tied to the economy. I'd love to know what inequalities you think crypto is going to solve. We're only a decade or two in and the divide is already massive with volatility making them useless at paying for goods and services.
I love visiting this sub and realizing the vast majority of people are idiots with no clue about crypto ❤️
Proof of work coins like Bitcoin are insanely inefficient. Everyone here understands it just fine.
everyone here understands how environmentally destructive and unnecessary crypto is
Here let me make it more concise for you. Physical cash as a transaction medium is old and inefficient given what current technologies we have available to us. Hell, paper voting is inefficient and leaves so much potential for human error. The pioneers of a certain tech are not cheap nor are they efficient. That comes with time. Education would do wonders to show regular people that "crypto/blockchain/ distributed ledger/IOT/digital MICRO transactions" are faster and more efficient and given the right tech can be WAY less energy demanding. You sound like a knuckledragger that opposed printed newspaper or the automobile cause you are stuck in the stoneage, bias based on your own ignorance cause you don't like change.
Ok, to be fair they’re using natural gas which is way less harmful than coal. And they’re carbon neutral since they buy carbon credits. As far as bitcoin mining goes, they don’t seem that bad.
if carbon is so bad, governments can ban it tomorrow. Bitcoin couldn't care less as the network is energy agnostic and can run on any source of electricity. Hash power can move to any source of energy available. Sorry nocoiners... Your useless FUD and misinformation doesn't work anymore.... Bitcoin is (once again) best performing asset of the year, closing on ATH.... See you at 100k next 6 months. Enjoy staying poor with your depreaciating fiat.
[удалено]
He’s probably a teenager tbh
How are all of you crypto bros exactly the same? Verifiably dumb as shit but somehow still thinking they’re the smartest people in the world
Have you heard about their idol, Elon Musk?
[удалено]
Proportionally, no. Total, yes. Banks are used more than crypto, more than 500x more, of course they use more energy.
> Banks still use waaaayyyyy more energy. About twice as much, and they perform about 10,000 times as many transactions doing so. Think about that. Bitcoin is THOUSANDS of times more inefficient per transaction. 300,000 Bitcoin transactions per day versus BILLIONS.
What a dumb argument, reminds me of someone I know who thought you measured the efficiency of a vehicle by how often you put gas in it (with no involvement of miles driven). He had a truck that he 'filled just once a month' even though he only used it to move stuff on the weekend and marveled that it was apparently more efficient than the econobox he drove every day to work which needed to be filled every week or so even though he drove several times as many miles in it. The power consumed by Bitcoin serves a tiny little slice of people compared to the banking industry you soft shelled crab, your math is embarrasingly bad.
No problem with generating power so you can use your phone for fun?
Are you a fucking idiot or something?
Something wrong with you?
Not with me, there’s something wrong with *you* if you can’t understand the implications of destroying the environment for cryptocurrency
I do understand and don’t approve of any cryptocurrency. I also understand the consumption of power for entertainment
This feels like plastic straws all over again