11–20 of 198 posts
The environmental impact of Bitcoin is positive, as Bitcoin allows us to use energy sources that are too remote or inaccessible to build cables to. For instance, waterfalls in remote locations. About transparency, it is the most transparent system, as all transactions are public. This is nothing but poor excuses.
Obviously, Bitcoin users want the opposite for the most part.
The environmental impact of Bitcoin is positive, as Bitcoin allows us to use energy sources that are too remote or inaccessible to build cables to. For instance, waterfalls in remote locations. About transparency, it is the most transparent system, as all transactions are public. This is nothing but poor excuses.
How does exploiting remote energy sources for Bitcoin have a positive environmental impact?
Bitcoin can finance the energy generation and later transmission infrastructure can be added.
It also appears that the concerns are not strong, more wishy-washy comments that could be disputed or clarified eventually. Wonder what they say if/when more countries do inquiries and adopt Bitcoin.
The environmental impact of Bitcoin is positive, as Bitcoin allows us to use energy sources that are too remote or inaccessible to build cables to. For instance, waterfalls in remote locations. About transparency, it is the most transparent system, as all transactions are public. This is nothing but poor excuses.
>"While the government did approach us for assistance on Bitcoin, this is not something the World Bank can support given the environmental and transparency shortcomings," they added. Environmental as the #1 concern? Bitcoin's enegery:market-cap ratio - a proxy for energy vs. value to humans - is >300x better than an airline & 60x better than JP Morgan & 20x better than google's. https://twitter.com/Okcoin/status/1403…
The environmental impact of Bitcoin is positive, as Bitcoin allows us to use energy sources that are too remote or inaccessible to build cables to. For instance, waterfalls in remote locations. About transparency, it is the most transparent system, as all transactions are public. This is nothing but poor excuses.
I disagree with your transparency point. I see that a lot of Layer 2 solutions like Lighting started which basically can make it nontransparent like Monero.
>"While the government did approach us for assistance on Bitcoin, this is not something the World Bank can support given the environmental and transparency shortcomings," they added. Environmental as the #1 concern? Bitcoin's enegery:market-cap ratio - a proxy for energy vs. value to humans - is >300x better than an airline & 60x better than JP Morgan & 20x better than google's. https://twitter.com/Okcoin/status/1403…
Having worked for a similar international government type organisation before, this would mean:
1) Hiring someone like IBM to implement the project, who would charge roughly 10x per man hour what they would have to pay for an internal team to do it, as well as licensing fees for various IBMs products that they don't really need.
2) IBM would find a group of junior level developers to build it, who would work about as well as you would expect given the constantly changing requirements dictated by a comittee who can barely spell blockchain.
3) After an overrun of 6-12 months the project would be scrapped, and whichever C-level manager who was incharge of it at IMF would be able blame IBM.
4) Said manager would then be able to take this experience and find a similar level position in private industry, paying 10x what he was on before. He'd celebrate his new job, by playing a round of golf with his IBM buddies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does exploiting remote energy sources for Bitcoin have a positive environmental impact?
In the case of El Salvador, Bitcoin mining will be used to bootstrap geothermal. Bitcoin can finance the energy generation and later transmission infrastructure can be added.
I have a litmus test I use when discussing global financial politics with friends - "What were the main factors you think lead to Ghaddafi's killing?"
The US uses the dollar as a weapon and it controls the world bank. So it makes sense that they won't help to de-dollarize the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interban...