The bitcoin support is a huge red flag for me. I really hope they scrap that.
It's actually really great. In many cases P2P failed, because of lack of ways to transfer value, compared to centralized services. P2P + LN might be the way for P2P renaissance. It's also a better and more correct way to use bitcoin just as money, and not as some kind of ownership token, which plagues the web3 scene. The core purpose of money is to be interoperable, to allow all kinds of goods and services to be trad…
Not everything needs to be monetized and microtransacted.
> that we free up by making technology more energy efficient This is 100% a fake problem that clearly does not exist if you understood anything about the energy market. Civilization is at an increasing rate consuming more electricity. Surely, someone who believes carbon emissions are destroying the planet would agree we need to electrify everything. Bitcoin consuming and therefore monetizing stranded and/or temporary…
Bitcoin doesn't discriminate between green energy sources and fossil fuel energy sources. It encourages production/consumption of fossil fuels just as much as it encourages production/consumption of green energy sources. There's no particular reason to believe that Bitcoin will accelerate electrification.
> Bitcoin doesn't discriminate between green energy sources and fossil fuel energy sources.
BINGO!
If you have something that will buy any left over or unusable stock of product X, the production of X becomes less risky and easier to invest in. This isn't hard. Bitcoin incentivizes energy production and innovation. If you want that energy to be green, bitcoin is still more than willing to buy it from you. Lowering the risk of innovation in the space is obviously good for green energy.
To be explicit, one problem with Bitcoin's energy use is that it has the potential to consume any excess energy-producing capacity that we free up by making technology more energy efficient. It could use any fossil fuel-powered energy production that otherwise might be obsoleted by green energy sources. Bitcoin and other PoW blockchains add a strong financial incentive to use all available energy production capacity…
> that we free up by making technology more energy efficient This is 100% a fake problem that clearly does not exist if you understood anything about the energy market. Civilization is at an increasing rate consuming more electricity. Surely, someone who believes carbon emissions are destroying the planet would agree we need to electrify everything. Bitcoin consuming and therefore monetizing stranded and/or temporary…
> monetizing stranded and/or temporary excess amounts of energy
Please stop saying this. Aluminum refining or hydrogen electrolysis fits so much better and actually benefits society.
With no mission statement or philosophy about data privacy or content filtering it's just appears to me as another for-profit company with no ethical stand point, pass.
The bitcoin support is a huge red flag for me. I really hope they scrap that.
I can understand if someone doesn't agree with the values and effects of Bitcoin but how on earth can this be a HUGE red flag?
The bitcoin support is a huge red flag for me. I really hope they scrap that.
It's actually really great. In many cases P2P failed, because of lack of ways to transfer value, compared to centralized services. P2P + LN might be the way for P2P renaissance. It's also a better and more correct way to use bitcoin just as money, and not as some kind of ownership token, which plagues the web3 scene. The core purpose of money is to be interoperable, to allow all kinds of goods and services to be trad…
When I chat to my friends and family the last thing I want to do is "transfer value". My bank app allows me to send money to my friends and family in seconds and to create quick payment requests as well.
Perhaps this app is just for blockchain people? If it's another Internet of Coins app then that explains the vague website and the lack of things like privacy policies.
I do find it funny that they've added rules about linking to their website to their terms and conditions. As if they have any right to control the way people link to them.
> that we free up by making technology more energy efficient This is 100% a fake problem that clearly does not exist if you understood anything about the energy market. Civilization is at an increasing rate consuming more electricity. Surely, someone who believes carbon emissions are destroying the planet would agree we need to electrify everything. Bitcoin consuming and therefore monetizing stranded and/or temporary…
> monetizing stranded and/or temporary excess amounts of energy Please stop saying this. Aluminum refining or hydrogen electrolysis fits so much better and actually benefits society.
Seems that the free market is determining that securing an open financial network benefits society more.
> that we free up by making technology more energy efficient This is 100% a fake problem that clearly does not exist if you understood anything about the energy market. Civilization is at an increasing rate consuming more electricity. Surely, someone who believes carbon emissions are destroying the planet would agree we need to electrify everything. Bitcoin consuming and therefore monetizing stranded and/or temporary…
> monetizing stranded and/or temporary excess amounts of energy Please stop saying this. Aluminum refining or hydrogen electrolysis fits so much better and actually benefits society.
How's your at home aluminum refining going? I unfortunately haven't had much luck monetizing my at home hydrogen electrolysis plant :(
What part of "Energy use is necessary to support human life" did you not understand when I said it? Do you understand that heat waves, flooding, forest fires, and other extreme weather events will interfere with the delivery of energy? Do you understand that water shortages will interfere with the delivery of energy (e.g. nuclear power plants need water for cooling)? Do you understand that resource wars will interfer…
> limiting energy use is vital to avoid climate catastrophe. This is what I have issue with. Energy use benefits humanity. Full stop. If you said civilization needs bananas to survive and flourish, then some good samaritan came along and said "I will always buy any leftover bananas you can't sell no matter where or when you grow them", you would get many more banana farms, people experimenting with new banana growing…
I'll try a simple analogy: imagine that your goal is to consume as much corn as possible. (A silly goal for many reasons, but that's a different discussion.) You have all of the corn that you've grown to eat, and then there's the seed corn you would need to plant in order to eat more corn in the future. If you decide to eat the seed corn as well, you will eat more corn in the immediate future, and then much less corn after that. Clearly limits to consumption are sometimes necessary in order to maximize consumption over the long term, even if you grant the premise that maximizing consumption is desirable.
> Holepunch is a platform for creating apps that don’t use any servers whatsoever. Ew; punny and/or topical names are fine, but just grabbing a term of art and using it for your product is 1. anti-social behaviour, and 2. not even a good idea selfishly, since you'll have an awful time trademarking it. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punching_%28networking%29 )
It makes sense for a peer to peer networking system to advertise its hole punching capabilities in their name. Many people still don't have IPv6 yet so hole punching will remain a necessity for a while.
As long as they don't try to enforce any stupid trademarks over a common term like that I don't see the problem.
Bitcoin doesn't discriminate between green energy sources and fossil fuel energy sources. It encourages production/consumption of fossil fuels just as much as it encourages production/consumption of green energy sources. There's no particular reason to believe that Bitcoin will accelerate electrification.
> Bitcoin doesn't discriminate between green energy sources and fossil fuel energy sources. BINGO! If you have something that will buy any left over or unusable stock of product X, the production of X becomes less risky and easier to invest in. This isn't hard. Bitcoin incentivizes energy production and innovation. If you want that energy to be green, bitcoin is still more than willing to buy it from you. Lowering th…
No, this doesn't make sense. If your goal is to reduce fossil fuel usage, and Bitcoin also incentivizes fossil fuels, then there's no reason to expect that Bitcoin will help reduce the share of energy produced by fossil fuels. Worse yet, if it increases total energy consumption, and doesn't affect the percentage produced by fossil fuels, then that will increase the absolute amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
Your arguments work just as well for reducing risk for investing in "marginal" fossil fuel sources.