501–510 of 578 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Digiconomist [1]. I should have linked it up top, my bad. Looks like they, in turn used this reference [2]. [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ [2] https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30087-X
This is a better index and not run by someone with an axe to grind https://cbeci.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me it seems like Bitcoin (and other pow cryptocurrencies) are almost like the climate change scapegoat for a number of social and economic issues that have seemingly come to a head recently to facilitate their rise. People mine because it is expensive, it isn't the other way around, so the real questions we should be asking in good faith are things like "Why it is profitable in the first place?" and I think it is…
> "why many institutions, both social and political in nature, appear to have become less trustworthy in the eye of the greater public?" It sounds like you're saying that bitcoin is like a hedge against trust in government. A sort of financial measurement of conspiracy theorism. This is a fascinating perspective, but I'm not sure who is financially exposed to that form of risk. It seems like a great vehicle for specu…
Most university loans are federally backed. All home loans are understood to be federally backed since '08 and most low income home loans are officially federally insured as well.
US Treasury bonds which make up a significant portion of pensions and corporate debt are essentially federally insured as well since it is know that the Fed will simply print the dollars needed to cover those debts.
So far higher education, home ownership, pensions, and corporate debt; and those are just the financial exposure. There is not a single financial instrument that doesn't in some way depend on these financial bases working properly other than crypto and perhaps some commodities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that's fine, no legitimate businesses hold them. Seriously. Your suppliers are paid in dollars, your tax burden is in dollars based on the conversion price on receipt. To hold them on receipt is wildly irresponsible speculation, as a business.
I don't know whether you consider Tesla a legitimate business but they're holding bitcoins. https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bitcoin/tesla-up-1-billion-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know whether you consider Tesla a legitimate business but they're holding bitcoins. https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bitcoin/tesla-up-1-billion-...
Also Time Magazine: https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bitcoin/time-magazine-to-ho...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are you handwaving away my concerns? Calm down. > Speaking of which, can you quantify what things pollute more? You're all over the comments trying to pin the blame for CO2 emissions on the the existence of PoW cryptocurrencies. But if you stop and think about the problem for more than 5 seconds, you'll realize that it's the CO2 emissions , not cryptocurrencies, that are the problem. They were a problem before…
> Calm down. FYI this is the worst thing one can say during a discussion. The effect, regardless of intent, is always to annoy the other.
Combined with the further-down "Here, let me Google that for you.", it seems likely that that was the intended effect. It's pretty clear that negative value to the discussion was provided by both comments, in addition to the (subjective) dismissive attitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like those things? That sounds like a stretch. As far as I can tell, we’re talking about the externalities of the energy usage of Bitcoin miners, which are the same per unit of energy (given some generation method) as any other usage of energy. That’s not even remotely comparable to activities that directly earn money by stealing or getting people addicted.
> That sounds like a stretch. No more of a stretch as comparing it to farming or art. I’m not making a judgement here, just listing other activities that make money for people and which have externalities, since ‘making money for the miners’ is claimed as a good. You be the judge.
Indeed, and that’s precisely my point. The externality problem ought to be addressed directly instead of creating a new regulatory body to decide which goods are “good” and thus allowed to have externalities and which goods are “bad” and thus are banned completely or banned from having externalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making money without using electricity? I suppose that’s not impossible, but it sounds unlikely at any appreciable scale.
Turning electricity into money is different from using some electricity while you make money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Fed failed to create inflation and that means low interest rates. The Bitcoin bugs are saying that the real reason is that the purchasing power of the dollar is eroding, but in reality it is too stable.
It seems stable if you measure with CPI inflation, but then check real estate prices, healthcare and education prices, stock prices.
IMO workers are beeing ripped off by finance class and recently quite hard. So I support some kind of better money.
Beside this higher land & property ownership tax and reduced work hours might help IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
your understanding of blockchain, nft and crypto is very superficial. do your research better
As written, your comment is neither insightful nor informative. What should jariel have known about, in your opinion? How does that requisite knowledge move the needle towards blockchain or crypto being net positives to society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If using a GPU to mine crypto is unethical shouldn't using a GPU to do things like videogames and rending hollywood super hero movies should also be taxed I mean they both run GPUs at 100% for hundreds of hours. Perhaps computing power in general should be capped so it can only use small amounts of power.
Carbon tax is not about making something illegal. You playing a game 4h/day is nothing compared to 1000 gpus mining 24/7. One is pennies in tax and the other would (presumably) be way more significant.
Red Dead Redemption 2 sold 34 million, the game takes well over 100 hours to complete and runs GPUs to their limits.
I think even if just half or a quarter of the players completed it that's significant next to mining and needs to be looked at with the same level as criticism.