111–119 of 119 posts
We need a significant worldwide CO2 emissions tax to get rid of the POW coins and replace them with something vastly more efficient. Bitcoin is unable to evolve due to lack of consensus. The only constant is change. If bitcoin is unable to change it will die.
OK then go ahead, what's your vastly more efficient solution?
We need a significant worldwide CO2 emissions tax to get rid of the POW coins and replace them with something vastly more efficient. Bitcoin is unable to evolve due to lack of consensus. The only constant is change. If bitcoin is unable to change it will die.
PoW isn't going anywhere. CO2 tax would just push more mining to renewable, which 80% of it already is. This is all FUD.
Lol, that the author isn't accounting for Bitcoins being used more than once makes this comparison one of the most laughable "bitcoin is too energy inefficient" arguments I've seen yet. This is basically like saying, "If you only account for the first passenger on the bus, busses are way less efficient than everyone driving their own sportscar!".
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-mining-more-polluting-than-...
Gold mining is less energy intensive and produces more value.
- I think 80 tons of CO2 for BTC is wrong. It should be around 15-20 tons (75% of BTC is mined with renewables, I think approx 20-25% is coal) - for US, CO2 per $ GDP should be around 0.3 kg - so if BTC is 50000$ value, it is almost same CO2 then something else US produce, (it would be 50000* 0.3 = 15 tons) - if we assume those numbers correct, lets assume they are both 15 tons, it means 50% of the things US produce…
80 tons is already the lower estimate. The upper bound is closer to 200 tons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention individuals aren't even the cause of creating most of the greenhouse gas volume behind climate change. It's massive corporations creating something like 90% of all greenhouse gasses? 100 of them create 71% ( https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=corpora... ) So when Shell and BP are on Twitter sharing ways to change your behavior to save the environment, it's like the murderer encouragin…
>It's massive corporations creating something like 90% of all greenhouse gasses? 100 of them create 71% And why are those corporations emitting Co2? For the fun of it? Because it generates profit for them? No, it's a means to an end for them, which is producing products that ultimately go to consumers. On the flip side, if you're a consumer and 80% of your co2 emissions are indirectly generated by corporations workin…
We need a significant worldwide CO2 emissions tax to get rid of the POW coins and replace them with something vastly more efficient. Bitcoin is unable to evolve due to lack of consensus. The only constant is change. If bitcoin is unable to change it will die.
But how else will we get rich without doing any work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely not zero, but I don't know any process in the financial industry that explicitly incentivizes wasting electricity. If business class tickets become cheaper, financial analysts will not start buying more plane tickets. Bitcoin miners on the other hand will start mining twice as fast the second the electricity price drops by half. It also doesn't seem like Bitcoin stakeholders are remotely interested in…
> I don't know any process in the financial industry that explicitly incentivizes wasting electricity Inflation. If you don't spend your money, it loses value. This is actually part of the economic program (inflate to grow demand). What are you going to spend it on? Stuff or sevices. Stuff takes electricity to make. Services take electricity to perform. You could also invest, but that's also just indirectly incentivi…
How does spending money on clean energy infrastructure produce CO2 emissions? Obviously there is a trace amount because we are dependent on a CO2 based economy but in reality if the incentives were correct we would be able to increase spending without additional CO2 emissions.
The problem begins with the fact that the central bank is distributing the fresh money in a way that drives Bitcoin up. So yes, we could argue that the central bank is directly responsible for the CO2 emissions of Bitcoin and the system itself is what's broken. Bitcoin is just the symptom.
And what about the CO2 impact of using traditional banking (air conditioning, heating, commuting...)
What about the CO2 impact of fiat currency in practice by governments & central banks? War has costs, so does welfare, and the electricity used to spin propaganda, etc. These are externalities that nobody is looking into, unless they have tinfoil hats on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These comments are worthless if you don't have the receipts to back them up. Be better than the rest of the internet.
https://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/03/19/global-warming-a... https://hbr.org/2018/09/the-social-and-political-costs-of-th... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-02-09/what-people... Happy to offer much more if requested