Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
newyorker.com
Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
#2Maybe the Government will make it illegal to mine new bitcoins and my bitcoins will go to the moon?
Re: Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
#3Maybe the Government will make it illegal to mine new bitcoins and my bitcoins will go to the moon?
Maybe the government will make it illegal to sell or possess bitcoins. That might not impact those coins as favorably.
Re: Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
#4Bitcoin uses far less energy than fiat currencies - and its not even close.
Re: Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
#5I find the recent push to frame crypto as an ecological fight mildly interesting as it clearly appears to be somewhat coordinated. That does not mean it is not true. But it is genuinely hard to not to wonder who is setting that on the agenda.
Re: Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
#6Was this post flagged?
It was near the top of the front page 5 minutes ago. Now it's not anywhere in the top 200 stories.
The fact that an entire natural gas power plant in upstate NY was purchased to exclusively power Bitcoin mining seems to be pretty newsworthy, at a time where we're trying to cut carbon.
Re: Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
#7I find the recent push to frame crypto as an ecological fight mildly interesting as it clearly appears to be somewhat coordinated. That does not mean it is not true. But it is genuinely hard to not to wonder who is setting that on the agenda.
Everything is a conspiracy with crypto promoters.
Re: Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
#8At its core, criticism of Bitcoin as bad for the environment is premised on the notion that Bitcoin is just a pointless game, rather than a useful piece of infrastructure. If it achieves everything that Bitcoin maximalists claim it will (more efficient financial rails, self-sovereign identity), then it is a cost worth paying. If needed, we can better incentivize green bitcoin mining with carbon taxes or renewable energy mining subsidies.
Re: Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
#9At its core, criticism of Bitcoin as bad for the environment is premised on the notion that Bitcoin is just a pointless game, rather than a useful piece of infrastructure. If it achieves everything that Bitcoin maximalists claim it will (more efficient financial rails, self-sovereign identity), then it is a cost worth paying. If needed, we can better incentivize green bitcoin mining with carbon taxes or renewable ene…
From the article:
> According to the Web site Digiconomist, a single bitcoin transaction uses the same amount of power that the average American household consumes in a month, and is responsible for roughly a million times more carbon emissions than a single Visa transaction.
How can you justify that as a cost worth paying? A month's worth of electricity for a single transaction?
It doesn't matter what you do with taxes or renewables. That's insane.
Re: Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
#10I find the recent push to frame crypto as an ecological fight mildly interesting as it clearly appears to be somewhat coordinated. That does not mean it is not true. But it is genuinely hard to not to wonder who is setting that on the agenda.
Everything is a conspiracy with crypto promoters.
Conspiracy is an interesting concept in my mind. Isn't it interesting that claiming someone is a conspiracy theorist is a way to dismiss arguments now without attempting to even consider those arguments? It is a very useful tactic.