181–190 of 699 posts
I hope the rest of world follows. There is nothing more volatile than a decentralised crypto currency. The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5% and energy consumption is beyond acceptable. Crypto as a tech to serve something different is totally fine of course.
It blows my mind that a community dedicated to technology would support this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought this "asset" was supposed to replace cash. Why would you "sell it for cash"? Other than an equivalent for selling US dollars for Euros.
> I thought this "asset" was supposed to replace cash. When you can buy food, house/rent and the doctor accepts bitcoins it will become cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a bit annoying that you assume that people critical of cryptocurrencies and specifically Bitcoin's environmental footprint are uneducated about the issues. It is not a myth. BTC's environmental footprint is preposterous. It's estimated that the network currently runs at 165 TWh/a, or around 19 GW, which means that one transaction uses around 5 GJ or 1500 kWh, and produces 800 kg of CO2, and 250 g of electronic…
Give me a break. Power consumption numbers are completely meaningless in this argument. Power usage does not correlate directly to CO2 emissions. Crypto can and does run on renewables. If we were serious about fixing climate change we'd stop all air traffic tomorrow. In reality, the climate issue is just a convenient political bludgeon.
Energy is fungible.
> If we were serious about fixing climate change we'd stop all air traffic tomorrow.
The fashion industry alone has more climate impact than air traffic and maritime traffic together. Aviation contributes around 1% of air pollution (though 5% of greenhouse effect, due to high altitudes).
But all of those (transport, fashion) provide utility. BTC usurps nearly 1% of world electricity without providing commensurate discernible utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won't downplay the environmental consequences of PoW, but the actual reason so many governments are speeding the push against crypto might be related to a future of high inflation and high gov debt. It would be the perfect storm for mainstream crypto adoption.
Nonsense. Why would any sane person move a large part of their assets into something as volatile as crypto? If you want to protect yourself against inflation, buy real estate or equities if your time horizon is long enough. Even fixed income once rates are a bit better. But for the average person please stay clear of crypto!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed this quite a bit, and I don't understand it. People keep writing articles and saying things amounting to 'it just won't last forever'. But the reason is, because it just won't, totalitarian governments don't last. Why wouldn't it? Strong central government. Clear economic and social goals with the ends justifying whatever unethical means. A complacent middle and upper class satiated by enough new wealth…
Nothing wrong with the fundamentals of your argument, but growth can’t be unlimited. Eventually it’s starts slowing down, then those complacent middle class will start being less complacent and start demanding more freedom. I think it’s reasonable to say the CCP will keep their grip on power for as long as they can continue delivering wealth to the middle class, and lifting those in poverty into the middle class. Wha…
I hope the rest of world follows. There is nothing more volatile than a decentralised crypto currency. The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5% and energy consumption is beyond acceptable. Crypto as a tech to serve something different is totally fine of course.
If you care so much about climate change have you completely stopped flying? Have you been in a car lately? The energy consumption from those activities is _beyond unacceptable_. I don't fly in airplanes but I use crypto. So why should you get to choose to do some activities that blast CO2 directly into the atmosphere but I can't? It is a disgusting, authoritarian ideology you have. Besides that crypto can run on sol…
Isn't this whataboutism? A is not so bad because you know, B does it too.
Here's an interesting take on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFp86n7QCf0 This analysis suggests that the value of tracking every financial transaction will eventually cause governments to all want to institute there own crypto currencies and eventually outlaw independent crypto currencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CO2 emissions are Θ(P). I don't see how you could say this "does not correlate directly to CO2 emissions".
Its not complicated. It is not necessary for crypto PoW to be powered by CO2 emitting fuels. It can be powered with renewables. Therefore the power usage of Bitcoin can't be used to infer its environmental impact. You need to know how much of that usage was on the back of fossil fuels.
That's completely irrelevant for the correlation. Renewables are theta-bound by fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are theta-bound by renewables. Only at zero emissions for a source this would stop being true. This is first semester math.
I hope the rest of world follows. There is nothing more volatile than a decentralised crypto currency. The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5% and energy consumption is beyond acceptable. Crypto as a tech to serve something different is totally fine of course.
Bitcoin wanted to be the world's currency, with a techno goldbug understanding of what money is. That shades a lot of what we think of as crypto. There are a lot of different versions of the idea though. A lot of variety exists in crypto now, and very little is deterministic. I don't want to rule out the positive possibilities, and outlawing is broad brush. The PCB grunted at crypto here. We can do That said, the var…
I think this isn't emphasized enough. With existing fiat money I have some degree of democratic control over monetary policy. With BTC, critical monetary policy was set by one person and if that monetary policy ever changes it will be decided by a combination of engineers and mining conglomerates.
Given how critical these policies are and how ideologically focused many of the non-speculators are, I am worried about growing systems with disastrous policy consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won't downplay the environmental consequences of PoW, but the actual reason so many governments are speeding the push against crypto might be related to a future of high inflation and high gov debt. It would be the perfect storm for mainstream crypto adoption.
Nonsense. Why would any sane person move a large part of their assets into something as volatile as crypto? If you want to protect yourself against inflation, buy real estate or equities if your time horizon is long enough. Even fixed income once rates are a bit better. But for the average person please stay clear of crypto!
At the same time, hedging against inflation is hard. The things you suggested come with their own risks.
I think a future in which crypto becomes stable due increased adoption is possible, and in that future it will be a good hedge.