Heh, Microsoft's cloud and data centers are also bad for the planet, but here we are.
[deleted]
Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
421–430 of 862 posts
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#422Bitcoin is an almost perfect exploitation of humanities fatal flaws (greed, unwillingness to acknowledge externalities - i.e. selfishness). It's that old SF-trope that the cause of many of humanity's biggest problems is humans.
Fiat currencies are an almost perfect exploitation of humanities fatal flaws (greed, unwillingness to acknowledge externalities - i.e. selfishness). Fractional reserve lending are an almost perfect exploitation of humanities fatal flaws (greed, unwillingness to acknowledge externalities - i.e. selfishness).
The difference is that those things are actually useful.
Also, bitcoin is fiat.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#423Bill Gates is also quite bad for the planet. I could never emit the CO2 he does if I tried.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fun and joy in and of themselves are worthy pursuits. That's completely aside from considering video games as an artistic medium that can be used to learn and share about the human experience. Bitcoin does none of that. At its very very best it's a way to buy hallucinogens on the internet with massive external consequences.
I think understanding bitcoin from a systems point of view is of great value. Although proof of work is problematic, the idea and manifestation of a censorship resisten electronic monetary system is just amazing. Bitcoin is actually working for more than 10 years... There are alternatives to PoW, e.g. ethereum 2.0, let's see if this works and than judge again...
Is it really censorship resistant though? In order to actually buy anything with BTC, you need a fiat offramp which is 100% vulnerable to censorship.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the cause of many of humanity's biggest problems is humans As opposed to elephants or sea urchins? How can humans not be the cause humanity's biggest problems? The Buddha taught there are three kinds of dukkha [usually translated as “suffering”]. The first kind is physical and mental pain from the inevitable stresses of life like old age, sickness, and death. The second is the distress we feel as a result of imperm…
> How can humans not be the cause humanity's biggest problems? That's a pretty good indicator of a civilization's state. For an advanced one, the answer to your question would be "it's nowhere near the top worries". All human-made horrors (war, climate change, etc.) would be left far behind. If we were as smart as we think we are, our biggest problems would be rogue asteroids, solar storms and aggressive aliens, not…
Again, question the premise holding in your mind’s hand a momento mori. All those things can and likely will happen. If the key advancement of human civilization was in virtue, would those things be a cause for worry or suffering?
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Thin out" is this another word for dying?
It could also mean just spreading out. So less dense civilizations, but the same amount of people.
In could, but that's generally not what it means when applied in this way. You don't thin out a a herd (which is where I think that phrase is most often used in English) by spreading it over a larger area, but by removing a percentage of the individuals that make up the herd.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what actually bothers me the most about all crypto-currencies? None of them are actually money, like in the paper-or-gold-coin sense. They're all ledgers. The thing about money is that I can hand it to someone . Possession of the money is possession of the money and third parties don't need to get involved in every transaction. I can hand someone dollars and take a sandwich and walk away, transaction done. T…
You're getting a lot of responses, because this is a pretty common complaint about crypto, and it taps into a great "WELL ACTUALLY" moment, because your concern is close enough to the "at least real money is backed by something" misconception (which, tbh, I'm sure you're aware of at this point if you weren't already). Fundamentally, what folks are trying to get to with crypto is a trust-less system, one that can oper…
Crypto is 'backed' by the sunk cost of the energy used to mine it.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what actually bothers me the most about all crypto-currencies? None of them are actually money, like in the paper-or-gold-coin sense. They're all ledgers. The thing about money is that I can hand it to someone . Possession of the money is possession of the money and third parties don't need to get involved in every transaction. I can hand someone dollars and take a sandwich and walk away, transaction done. T…
> The thing about money is that I can hand it to someone. Honestly don’t know if you’re trolling or just old. I used paper money once last year. To buy weed. Because the federal government has determined I am not responsible enough to use or own weed. No one I know uses physical cash anymore. We’re moving away from physical items where possible, not toward it. I would rather have my currency on a public DLT than cont…
> Honestly don’t know if you’re trolling or just old.
No need to be ageist. It's a fair perspective. There is a quality of independence and agency that comes from being able to purchase things with cash.
Ironically, your weed transaction is a perfect example of that. I am a little confused by your argument though. Are you saying that you used cash because you couldn't pay legally with a debit/credit card or something? How come you didn't you use crypto? That aside, even with cash you were able to come to an independent accord (without the gov) and trade value for value. You could almost call it a barter, if you really consider cash to be a relic.
Despite having laws against this, society is mostly okay with some gray area around "off the books" transactions - which is why you can brag about it online and no one really cares, much like jaywalking.
More options for independent transactions don't necessarily hurt, but they do muddy the waters. The thing about cash is, since it is so commonly used, people generally understand what it is worth.
If I sell a TV for $100 on Craigslist, I take my $100 and I have a good idea of what I can buy at the grocery store with that. Offer to trade me 0.0020 BTC (~$100 right now) and I'm less likely to engage in the transaction because I don't understand its inherent value. You could even offer me 0.0022 BTC ($110) and I'd pass. How much gas can I buy with 0.0022 BTC? Do any gas stations around me take BTC? Do I need to convert it? I don't know. Add even more cryptos and it becomes even less clear...
I'm not against more options. More crypto options = more ability to barter. You and your dealer can decide to transact in Pokémon cards and no one's going care. But I do not see it being some sort of fix-all for the downsides to cash.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#429It is not bitcoin, it is the human race which is cancer to this planet. This race will consume everything, destroy every other race, gobble up all resources, drink up all the water and burn down every forest. And then it will destroy itself just like cancer cells.
I know I am being hyper-cynical but this is how I feel very often. When I read about human endeavor of settling at Mars, I do commend the engineering skill but I also see the irony that the same human race couldn't protect the most suitable and hospitable planet.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but Bitcoin's wealth and access is also very concentrated. If you replace USD with BTC, you still have a power imbalance, just a slightly different one.
The real power imbalance is the Central Bank's power to confiscate wealth by inflating it away aka money printing, and not to forget the confiscation of physical gold by the US in 1933 (thanks FDR). There is a reason why countries decoupled from the gold standard to fund WW1. They got near infinite access to the nation's wealth. The loser of WW1 ie Germany eventually suffered hyperinflation, as have countries like Zi…
The GP's point is that even if we switch to Bitcoin completely, there will still be a hierarchy of financial players, with regular people at the bottom, just like in the current system.
There are ~150MM people working in US, so let's say that only these 150MM need to perform financial transactions (get paid, pay others, etc.). How many of these 150MM will be direct participants in Bitcoin? If not all of them are miners, there will be some necessary centralization.
Why should anyone trust the 10,000+ Bitcoin miners? Do I as a regular user have more freedom when dealing with these 10,000 miners vs the 4,000+ US banks?