601–610 of 862 posts
As something of an outsider (I own some crypto but know/care very little about it) I cannot fathom how anyone could defend the energy consumption associated with Bitcoin. Maybe someone can change my mind, but based on my current understanding, I would fully support outlawing that specific kind of energy waste.
The deaths, infertility and other destruction of lives he has caused in Africa and India are horrendous
Actually, to see a good reason why some countries are struggling to meet their energy needs, you need only look here: https://hindenburgresearch.com/ormat/
I'm more concerned that Mr Gates has inadvertently (accidently on purpose?) constructed a straw man that draws attention away from the rather more egregious effects of corruption on energy supply.
The deaths, infertility and other destruction of lives he has caused in Africa and India are horrendous:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His status as rich tech billionaire doesn't make a difference unless he is making arguments that are new or interesting. And he isn't. We've all been hearing the environment argument for years now. Plus, there is obviously an argument to be made that he has had a negative overall influence on the world & therefore shouldn't be trusted.
>> Plus, there is obviously an argument to be made that he has had a negative overall influence on the world That is not only not obvious, but - even with his philanthropy efforts alone, the opposite would be obvious.
There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.
Another armchair cryptographer on HN who has no idea what they're talking about... somehow this is acceptable when it comes to Bitcoin. I feel like I'm being charitable here but what exists are other cryptocurrencies which trade-off security and/or decentralization in favor of some other properties. Regarding proof-of-stake for example, I'll defer to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25007874
I'm just someone who sees the failed promises made by Bitcoin (fast, cheap transactions) against the horrendous damage it is causing the environment.
There has to be a better way.
It 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…
There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.
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…
Many of the other comments have pointed out how money doesn't have this quality either. This comparison is a wash: buy gold if that's your goal (at least until we find/mine a gold-laden asteroid).
The other comparison is who you have to trust to insure the value of that currency. In the case of cash, it is your government/Treasury. In the case of cryptocurrency, it is mathematics. I am originally from Zimbabwe and have much to say about trusting the government with insuring the value of cash...
That's why I have a small clutch of proof-of-stake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because something else is bad already doesn't mean you should introduce more of the same. Also Bill Gate's opinion is based on Bitcoin offering almost no utilitarian value but consumes a ton of energy, nothing to do with monetary policies.
The value is providing the ownership of a digital scarce fixed-supply item that can be transferred and traded. That's the product. And the market gives it a price. Also, it has everything to do with monetary policy.
Bitcoin has negligent utilitarian value. It does nothing besides reward people who can consume energy the fastest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I buy that. There's not any proof that a more advanced civilization exists. Even if we assume that one does exist, why does it follow that they are immune to war, oppression, power struggles etc? The only data point we have suggests otherwise. Or maybe the aliens are all holding hands in a circle singing kumbayah?
Nature often seems idyllic, when it has reached a stable equilibrium. But what it really is, is a ruthless and absolute class system, where each species "knows" its place, and has settled in to make the best of its lot. The disruptions to equilibrium that we witness are almost always man-made. But there have been others, caused by new species, ice ages, asteriods, the Great Oxygenation Event, etc. Alien civilization…