261–270 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps leaders have found the problem of scaling energy production intractable. Perhaps partial stone-age reversion is an acceptable solution. I'm seeing lots and lots of support building for efforts to reduce meat consumption.
> Perhaps partial stone-age reversion is an acceptable solution. Good luck winning an election with that program.
Ah, the electricity police strike again. You're allowed to use the electricity you paid for for some computations, but not for others. Seems logical and enforceable.
The EU has a long history of regulating energy waste, and outlawing crypto is a logical next step.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most wasteful, pointless and potentially dangerous development that happened this century hypersonic nuclear missiles... nah, it's definitely this open source software for timestamping database changes.
Ballistic missiles are already hypersonic. Nuclear submarines can already fire without exposing themselves. What's the difference?
I hope to see more goverments prevent individuals from performing hash computations on their computers.
The hash function is a climate disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The explanation is simply that there are people that have bought in that want others to buy in also so they can liquidate for a profit. Meanwhile, others are susceptible to what amounts to FOMO-driven investment. The same sentiment that drove the beanie-baby craze, the dot-com boom, the subprime mortgage crisis, the current metaverse craze, and so on. Nothing new under the sun.
>there are people that have bought in that want others to buy in also so they can liquidate for a profit. Is that any different than a ponzi/pyramid scheme?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The explanation is simply that there are people that have bought in that want others to buy in also so they can liquidate for a profit. Meanwhile, others are susceptible to what amounts to FOMO-driven investment. The same sentiment that drove the beanie-baby craze, the dot-com boom, the subprime mortgage crisis, the current metaverse craze, and so on. Nothing new under the sun.
You don't need to invest if you just want to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, i thought the fact we were discussing a move by Sweden, in English on a website dominated by Americans kind of gave the game away. We should reopen the thread with a different premise. "Crypto currencies have no place or value in the western world"
It hat the same place as encryption for the same reason. And it is being fought like encryption was, for the same reasons.
Nobody ever fought encryption because of its environmental impact and contribution to global warming and wasted energy, or because it burns lots of coal and causes cancer and lung disease.
The basic idea of the economy is people can earn the right to energy, and then direct it to a goal of their choosing. The government making a value judgement about what type of commercial activity is worthwhile is extremely risky. Countries with innovative financial and credit systems have historically steamrolled those that don't have such innovations. We still don't understand the nature of crypto.
The role of government is also capturing and charging for negative externalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first point is classic whataboutism. Would you defend a murder court case by claiming people don't care when the police kill people? It's the same thing, but people being replaced by the planet. Second point - who are these people, and how much of BTC usage comes from that, vs greedy 'investors'/'evangelists' who have bought in, and get rich by other people buying in? It's a rich people's plaything. Poor people i…
Bitcoin is targeted because it is a threat to power, not because of any environmental concerns. The people who use it do not have to justify it for you or anyone else. That's what makes it successful.
Speak for yourself. YOU may not have any environmental concerns because you don't give a shit about the environment, but you can't blame everybody else for being that negligent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about the people win against the evil banks and governments ... and then proceeds to drown in the rising oceans, burn in increased wildfires, freeze in extremely cold weather (including all the gas and coal power plants used to mine BTC, see recent Texas events).
We could ban bitcoin and still drown in rising oceans. 100 companies contribute to 70% of Earth’s pollution. Why aren’t we banning them? https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
The fact that we aren't banning some things that we should (if we have an alternative) doesn't mean we shouldn't ban anything. To be clear, I'm all for banning climate change activities that we have an alternative for. Also for accelerating research into things for which we don't. Bitcoin can be regulated in order to limit the climate change effects, right now it's a huge tulip mania.