21–30 of 162 posts
https://www.coindesk.com/what-bloomberg-gets-wrong-about-bit...
Yes, this is technically 100% accurate. However it's also 100% missing the point, since for the transaction to be globally accepted, a hash needs to be mined.
To paraphrase a few memes, "they're technically right, but they're being an asshole about it."
I always wondered what will happen when the environmentalists find out about the energy consumption requirements of Bitcoin.
Bit of an aside, but it's so wild that we label people as "environmentalists" and that anyone would place themselves NOT in that group. It seems like 100% of people should want air which is non-toxic, water which is non-toxic and food which is non-toxic. But of course, being an "abolitionist" was a political group in the 1800s but now it's just assumed that 100% of people are anti-slavery, so maybe the optimistic tak…
This is a really low bar for what it means to be an environmentalist.
I always wondered what will happen when the environmentalists find out about the energy consumption requirements of Bitcoin.
The counterargument is always that at some point in future the energy consumption problem will be solved, but isn't the rate of computation a or the main factor against 50%+ attacks? Else the solutions proposed seemed to relay on centralized services that don't actually play on the blockchain to reduce the actual amount of transactions and load, also then avoiding the delays - but then re-adding the supposed main iss…
I always wondered what will happen when the environmentalists find out about the energy consumption requirements of Bitcoin.
Bit of an aside, but it's so wild that we label people as "environmentalists" and that anyone would place themselves NOT in that group. It seems like 100% of people should want air which is non-toxic, water which is non-toxic and food which is non-toxic. But of course, being an "abolitionist" was a political group in the 1800s but now it's just assumed that 100% of people are anti-slavery, so maybe the optimistic tak…
The way I see it, your 'environmentalist' label generally applies to those who thing we should spend/sacrifice a lot. And the 'climate denier'/'anti-environmentalist' label applies to those at the opposite end of the spectrum who don't think we should sacrifice or spend anything.
Also re: slavery, more people are enslaved now in the world than at any point in history. More black men are enslaved by the prison system in the USA than there were at the height of North American slavery. So things are never so boolean.
Bitcoin transactions take negligible energy to produce and validate. It's block production that's energy-intensive, and it's the same regardless of how big or full blocks are.
Like any energy-intensive industry that could operate profitably via fossil fuel consumption, mining should be regulated to only use green energy. No different than power production and consumption today.
When Starlink is going to be fully deployed the internet would be impossible to censor and the bitcoin will be way more valuable.
Counterpoint: https://www.coindesk.com/the-last-word-on-bitcoins-energy-co...
Counterpoint: https://www.coindesk.com/the-last-word-on-bitcoins-energy-co...
Explaining that we are lucky to have bitcoin because China is wasting unused electricity...