11–20 of 61 posts
Everyone competing to find hashes that start with a large number of zeros to secure a currency is significantly less of an ecological disaster than maintaining a standing army (or military alliances with someone who does) like fiat currencies use.
Bitcoin can't function without the same standing armies
How does the bitcoin community solve this problem? Is migrating to a proof-of-stake system viable in the long term? Would doing so affect the value of bitcoin as an asset? Would it improve it's value as anything else?
How are non-proof of work algorithms doing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not understand the argument, i have read it a lot in the last weeks. Does bitcoin not just incentivise the currently cheapest energy source? Which is still not renewable for most markets afaik.
Eventually all markets will converge on renewable energy being the cheapest. It can be no other way — no consumable fuel will always beat consumable fuel in the long run. Bitcoin accelerates this transition process by providing something of value.
edit: well, actually of course I understand. But wouldn't it be honest to say "I care less about the environment than I care about my wealth" instead of claiming that Bitcoin will incentivise green energy?
Everyone competing to find hashes that start with a large number of zeros to secure a currency is significantly less of an ecological disaster than maintaining a standing army (or military alliances with someone who does) like fiat currencies use.
To assume they're using the same mix of power generating processes as average, or as everyone else, doesn't make any sense. They aren't. They're effectively finding a financial means of exporting cheap electricity that is more efficient than literally exporting it via high-tension wires or turning it into products (like aluminum, as Iceland does) on-site.
Could it be better? Hell yes. And I wish proof-of-stake and all the other ideas well.
Hahaha not this again. More ignorance and misinterpretation of how and why energy is used. It doesn’t matter how much energy is used! What matters is how it is made, and there is no better financial incentive than renewably mined bitcoin. Eventually humanity should build acoustic Dyson spheres around nocoiners to convert their void screams into network hashrate.
I do not understand the argument, i have read it a lot in the last weeks. Does bitcoin not just incentivise the currently cheapest energy source? Which is still not renewable for most markets afaik.
Solar is getting cheaper following a learning curve, where every billion dollars spent makes it a few percent cheaper. It’s possible that an increase in power demand will get us to fully renewable energy faster. Solar competes well with coal for new capacity, but not for existing capacity. So growth in demand may cause a faster transition.
I wonder how much energy is used by just the cafeterias combined in all of the federal reserve's many offices.
To counter the whataboutisms abounding in the comments thread here, I will start a comment tree differently. How does the bitcoin community solve this problem? Is migrating to a proof-of-stake system viable in the long term? Would doing so affect the value of bitcoin as an asset? Would it improve it's value as anything else?
PoS is not the path forward. Reducing energy is not the path forward. Clean energy generation is the only way forward.