31–40 of 119 posts
- I think 80 tons of CO2 for BTC is wrong. It should be around 15-20 tons (75% of BTC is mined with renewables, I think approx 20-25% is coal) - for US, CO2 per $ GDP should be around 0.3 kg - so if BTC is 50000$ value, it is almost same CO2 then something else US produce, (it would be 50000* 0.3 = 15 tons) - if we assume those numbers correct, lets assume they are both 15 tons, it means 50% of the things US produce…
And what about the CO2 impact of using traditional banking (air conditioning, heating, commuting...)
We need a significant worldwide CO2 emissions tax to get rid of the POW coins and replace them with something vastly more efficient. Bitcoin is unable to evolve due to lack of consensus. The only constant is change. If bitcoin is unable to change it will die.
We need a significant worldwide CO2 emissions tax to get rid of the POW coins and replace them with something vastly more efficient. Bitcoin is unable to evolve due to lack of consensus. The only constant is change. If bitcoin is unable to change it will die.
But how else will we get rich without doing any work?
Are there any good papers on the BTC network robustness in the event of war. It is well known that major military powers have the ability to cut essentially every ocean-floor optical fiber bundle handling the backbone of the internet at a moment’s notice. If this happens, how would the bitcoin network respond without active connections to other mining nodes? E.g. would the Chinese miners automatically (algorithmicall…
Very interesting thought. I believe that chains would initially split, effectively being forks of each other. However, the consensus algorithm of Bitcoin dictates that the chain with the most work is the valid one, meaning that in the event of a "reconnection", one of the chains would be abandoned (and everyone would agree which one to keep, namely the one with the most work). In the case of a total disconnect betwee…
Is this a property we would ever want in a should-be decentralized currency?
One way this can happen today is with intentional forks.
Are there any good papers on the BTC network robustness in the event of war. It is well known that major military powers have the ability to cut essentially every ocean-floor optical fiber bundle handling the backbone of the internet at a moment’s notice. If this happens, how would the bitcoin network respond without active connections to other mining nodes? E.g. would the Chinese miners automatically (algorithmicall…
There was a time that it did, and then we banned CFCs, and now it doesn't.
Shouting at people about CO2 is simply never ever ever going to fix the problem. It needs to be incentivised or it won't happen.
- I think 80 tons of CO2 for BTC is wrong. It should be around 15-20 tons (75% of BTC is mined with renewables, I think approx 20-25% is coal) - for US, CO2 per $ GDP should be around 0.3 kg - so if BTC is 50000$ value, it is almost same CO2 then something else US produce, (it would be 50000* 0.3 = 15 tons) - if we assume those numbers correct, lets assume they are both 15 tons, it means 50% of the things US produce…
Renewables don't exist in a vacuum: "Green" miners buying up capacity drives up the price, driving others into non-renewables as a consequence (if only temporarily). Until we are at 100% renewables, supporting a more energy-consuming product/solution/process while alternatives readily exist should not be called "green", in my opinion.
Yes they do, like all energy sources there's a physical limit on how far you can transmit it, all power generators live in a regional bubble.
There's a reason all that excess hydro energy in Sichaun province goes into negative prices multiple times a year and can't be bought elsewhere in the country or even exported to other countries, it's simply too far away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renewables don't exist in a vacuum: "Green" miners buying up capacity drives up the price, driving others into non-renewables as a consequence (if only temporarily). Until we are at 100% renewables, supporting a more energy-consuming product/solution/process while alternatives readily exist should not be called "green", in my opinion.
> Renewables don't exist in a vacuum Yes they do, like all energy sources there's a physical limit on how far you can transmit it, all power generators live in a regional bubble. There's a reason all that excess hydro energy in Sichaun province goes into negative prices multiple times a year and can't be bought elsewhere in the country or even exported to other countries, it's simply too far away.
Brazil has a 2500 km long ultra high voltage direct current line running from a hydroelectric power plant to Rio de Janeiro. I'm pretty sure there's a medium-sized city or two within that radius of Sichuan.
As far as I'm concerned, this is equivalent to the statement that "refrigerating beer causes the ozone layer to fail". There was a time that it did, and then we banned CFCs, and now it doesn't. Shouting at people about CO2 is simply never ever ever going to fix the problem. It needs to be incentivised or it won't happen.
(https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=corpora...)
So when Shell and BP are on Twitter sharing ways to change your behavior to save the environment, it's like the murderer encouraging you to wear a lucky charm to prevent being murdered, as they're standing over you with the knife.