Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The current trend of removing cash is a serious mistake
Comments
-
I agree completely that lots of other economic activities are a waste of energy. Two wrongs still don't make a right.0
-
What earthly difference does it make if the kWh would otherwise have gone down the toilet? Think about what you're suggesting here. You'd like to dictate how renewable power that otherwise would have been wasted should be used - whilst dismissing entirely the purpose of that power usage.How many kWh per bitcoin?
I'll answer that by asking you the same thing about gold. Gold is a proven store of value - yet people in their 100s of thousands speculate on it. Bitcoin is formative in its development as a store of value/digital gold/ and a hedge against fiat money in it's own right. People speculate on it also - in its development in that context.Is it for speculation or storing wealth?
Respectfully, I don't give a fiddlers whether you care to comment or not. I would have thought that it's obvious - this is a discussion board which people use to share ideas/opinions, etc. Participation is not mandatory. You're free to participate or not as you see fit.Same as I Kyuss, not interested in going backwards and I'm glossing over the refutations that don't make sense to me.0 -
The problem is, that Bitcoin enthusiasts - in the same tack as Libertarians - don't tend to concede any points, they just do the three-card-monte of switching between various different tangents, to keep louder and louder repetitive advertising of bitcoin Bitcoin Bitcoin BITCOIN! going as long as possible.Is it for speculation or storing wealth?
You are arguing both ways at times, confusing! Same as I Kyuss, not interested in going backwards and I'm glossing over the refutations that don't make sense to me.
They will throw sources at you to try to make it look credible - and will ignore refutations of those sources (especially refutations of conflicts of interest and reputation) - just will switch to a different tangent backed up utilizing the same tainted sources etc. etc.. As if they don't know the meaning of 'conflict of interest'.
It's a waste of time arguing with, it's just advertising. There is not a great risk of people taking it as credible either, so isn't necessarily worth arguing with to prevent that - concise mocking refutations are better (unlike some of the Libertarian stuff - where there may actually be enough potential for deceiving people, to make it worth arguing with).0 -
That's a misunderstanding (albeit that its an insightful misunderstanding).I agree completely that lots of other economic activities are a waste of energy. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
I - in no way - believe that bitcoin mining is 'a waste of energy'. It serves a very important purpose.0 -
Ok fine but I am still interested to know how many kWh. The energy is clearly accessible and I'm curious about the opportunity cost.
Bitcoin is fine but I don't like how many have been seduced into losing their money with overly optimistic talk, a bit more realism, it may well be the future but it might also be a bubble and I don't like the proposal that it should supercede cash. I think it is a dangerous move and I agreed with the points about needing a store of wealth some government can't delete at a whim, such as hard cash going back to the OP or a new better form of crypto if the whole area can be cleaned up.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is what you said:I never said that. If you can't directly quote me as saying something, don't post pretending I said it - as it leads to stupid games where I end up forced to reply to correct misrepresentations of my posts.
And with that, you're suggesting that bitcoin has no use case. My post calls you out on that.Bitcoin advocates are desperate to proselytize it as the solution - they just can't find a 'problem' that solution is meant to solve
Mischaracterise bitcoin's energy usage to your hearts content - but the reality is that is exactly what it is - a mischaracterisation.where instead of wasting energy in the manner Bitcoin does....
So far we've figured out that gold cash and bitcoin have positive and negative attributes. Some of bitcoins are in the process of being addressed. It still has certain advantages over the others that can be used as a societal good.Bitcoin however, is simply one of the first to become popular, and is riding mostly on that - with an ever-growing trail of problems.
If you had a gram of decency and a real interest in discussion, you would discuss the topic at hand - and not try to mischaracterise those that disagree with your position.The problem is, that Bitcoin enthusiasts - in the same tack as Libertarians - don't tend to concede any points, they just do the three-card-monte of switching between various different tangents, to keep louder and louder repetitive advertising of bitcoin Bitcoin Bitcoin BITCOIN! going as long as possible.
They will throw sources at you to try to make it look credible - and will ignore refutations of those sources (especially refutations of conflicts of interest and reputation) - just will switch to a different tangent backed up utilizing the same tainted sources etc. etc.. As if they don't know the meaning of 'conflict of interest'.
You had to write that down and tell us that? That's really informed the discussion.It's a waste of time arguing with
A measure of the 'man' right there.There is not a great risk of people taking it as credible either, so isn't necessarily worth arguing with to prevent that - concise mocking refutations are better (unlike some of the Libertarian stuff - where there may actually be enough potential for deceiving people, to make it worth arguing with).
Bitcoin can be transacted by anyone - whether banked or unbanked.Snickers Man wrote: »It DOES have implications for society at large, however. Not everybody has a bank account; not everybody can GET a bank account. Will school children be paid their pocket money in Revolut cards from now on?0 -
You are directly lying about what I said, by quote-mining my sentences - directly leaving out part of my sentence to change its context. You left out all of the bolded part here:makeorbrake wrote: »This is what you said:
And with that, you're suggesting that bitcoin has no use case. My post calls you out on that.Bitcoin advocates are desperate to proselytize it as the solution - they just can't find a 'problem' that solution is meant to solve, that anyone gives the smallest toss about, and which isn't better solved by something far more simple/proven.
Do not quote anything other than full sentences from me - with nothing cut out from them.0 -
What 'opportunity cost'? If I decide to allocate funds to harness stranded renewable power, that's my capital and my opportunity cost. Not yours. Last I remember, we live in a society where you don't dictate to me what I spend my money on.Ok fine but I am still interested to know how many kWh. The energy is clearly accessible and I'm curious about the opportunity cost.
So now we are getting to the heart of it. I asked you about your bitcoin ownership and you didn't answer....although I suspect we have our answer of sorts here. You speculated on bitcoin in 2017 when the market was over-exuberant and that hurts, right? I'm sorry if that's the case.Bitcoin is fine but I don't like how many have been seduced into losing their money with overly optimistic talk, a bit more realism, it may well be the future but it might also be a bubble and I don't like the proposal that it should supercede cash.
However, how is this any different to any exhuberent market - whether it be bitcoin, gold, property, stocks, silver, etc.?? There is no central entity when it comes to bitcoin. If you feel that someone led you astray, maybe they did. However, that doesn't suddenly make bitcoin evil or take away any of its utility or potential.
How would it be any different when the markets tanked earlier this year? How about when oil went to minus (-) $37/barrel. Or when gold dropped 40 and 44% in the past?
It was in a bubble in late 2017 - and it may well be again in the future. However, so have many things found themselves in a bubble - most notably property. That doesn't make them evil/bad/lacking utility.it may well be the future but it might also be a bubble
How about it being there as an option should people want or choose to use it? How about that proposal?I don't like the proposal that it should supercede cash.
There isn't a market where greed doesn't inhabit. Be it gold/stocks/property/bitcoin, etc. It's part of human nature.or a new better form of crypto if the whole area can be cleaned up.
As regards a better form of crypto, that's always of interest to me. I'd be keen to hear how bitcoin could be improved upon.0 -
You are directly lying about what I said, by quote-mining my sentences - directly leaving out part of my sentence to change its context. You left out all of the bolded part here:
The first point I'll make is mind your bloody manners! I didn't directly lie. The quote is yours.
Right...and you've accussed me of somehow changing the context on the basis of not including that part of your mutterings. Fine - include it. Now tell me what the hell has changed? At the end of the day, you suggest with your statement (with or without what you highlight in bold) that bitcoin has no use case. The point I made in highlighting your muttering against @harrylittle's post is entirely relevant and valid.You left out all of the bolded part here:
And my message to you KyussB is mind your bloody manners. If there's any issue with what I post here, that's up to a moderator to deal with. You won't disingenuously dictate to me in that manner.Do not quote anything other than full sentences from me - with nothing cut out from them.0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »That's a misunderstanding (albeit that its an insightful misunderstanding).
I - in no way - believe that bitcoin mining is 'a waste of energy'. It serves a very important purpose.
It's the very definition of burying printed cash at various depths and having people dig it up to create an economy.
It's an established theory which I'm sure you are familiar with and explains why burning "work" is a acceptable way of generating currency.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money#:~:text=The%20General%20Theory%20of%20Employment%2C%20Interest%20and%20Money%20of%201936,%E2%80%93%20the%20%22Keynesian%20Revolution%22.
I don't agree with it but I do understand that the expense of "work" is an allowable way to meter the creation of currency but would prefer if people tilled the soil rather than over clocked their graphics cards.0 -
Advertisement
-
It makes a complete lie out of your post as I did not say it has no use case, it has no use that - with the bolded part of my sentence left in - "that anyone gives the smallest toss about, and which isn't better solved by something far more simple/proven".makeorbrake wrote: »The first point I'll make is mind your bloody manners! I didn't directly lie. The quote is yours.
Right...and you've accussed me of somehow changing the context on the basis of not including that part of your mutterings. Fine - include it. Now tell me what the hell has changed? At the end of the day, you suggest with your statement (with or without what you highlight in bold) that bitcoin has no use case. The point I made in highlighting your muttering against @harrylittle's post is entirely relevant and valid.
And my message to you KyussB is mind your bloody manners.
Don't play the retarded game of lying about what other posters have said, thus forcing them to respond to correct that.0 -
I don't agree with it but I do understand that the expense of "work" is an allowable way to meter the creation of currency but would prefer if people tilled the soil rather than over clocked their graphics cards.
To your point, many see it as the energy standard - Henry Ford had envisaged back in the day.
I do get the point you are making but where my opinion diverges is on the basis that if stranded renewable power is being used, then what's the harm? Secondly, the part that many don't get is that it isn't expending energy just for the sake of it. That work secures a worldwide financial network (the bitcoin blockchain network) - a network that has been subject to all manner of attacks over the course of its 11 years and yet it has never been taken down. It's as a result of that Proof of Work (PoW) network consensus model that it has never been up-ended. Alongside securing the network, miners also confirm transactions. That's the purpose of their work.0 -
It makes a complete lie out of your post as I did not say it has no use case, it has no use that - with the bolded part of my sentence left in - "that anyone gives the smallest toss about, and which isn't better solved by something far more simple/proven".
Don't play the retarded game of lying about what other posters have said, thus forcing them to respond to correct that.
Listen, the bolded part of your sentence makes no difference whatsoever to the point I made. If anything, it strengthens the point I made. Whether you say theres...
A. NO use case
or
B. NO use case that's of any value to anyone
...my point is entirely valid in either case. Another poster effectively provided the use case. The original topic of this thread provides that use case.
And you want to accuse me of lying and go on with this type of semantics? That's really useful to the discussion.0 -
The opportunity cost to the world. How many kWh??? If you can use it one way, you can use it another0
-
Don't paraphrase me. Quote me in full or not at all. I did not say merely A or B, there.makeorbrake wrote: »Listen, the bolded part of your sentence makes no difference whatsoever to the point I made. If anything, it strengthens the point I made. Whether you say theres...
A. NO use case
or
B. NO use case that's of any value to anyone
...my point is entirely valid in either case. Another poster effectively provided the use case. The original topic of this thread provides that use case.
And you want to accuse me of lying and go on with this type of semantics? That's really useful to the discussion.
You are again lying about what I have said, by selectively leaving out what was said in my post.
Again, here is what I said - with the bit bolded, that you have chosen to selectively leave out this time:KyussB wrote:Bitcoin advocates are desperate to proselytize it as the solution - they just can't find a 'problem' that solution is meant to solve, that anyone gives the smallest toss about, and which isn't better solved by something far more simple/proven.
You have a habit of lying about what I have said, so do not partially quote only select parts of my sentences, quote me in full - do not paraphrase me, quote me in full.0 -
The opportunity cost to the world. How many kWh??? If you can use it one way, you can use it another
Are you a totalitarian or a communist, i_surge?
Who are you to tell me what I decide to spend my capital on? I'll make the point again. I decide to allocate capital to a solar/wind/hydro bitcoin mining farm in the back of beyonds - away from a population centre (i.e. that electricity couldn't possibly be used by or for anyone else), then ..
A. What's the problem with that?
B. What business is it of yours?
&
C. Who are you to tell me what I can or can't spend my money on (based on your misunderstanding of bitcoin mining and the purpose that it serves)?0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »
So now we are getting to the heart of it. I asked you about your bitcoin ownership and you didn't answer....although I suspect we have our answer of sorts here. You speculated on bitcoin in 2017 when the market was over-exuberant and that hurts, right? I'm sorry if that's the case.
However, how is this any different to any exhuberent market - whether it be bitcoin, gold, property, stocks, silver, etc.?? There is no central entity when it comes to bitcoin. If you feel that someone led you astray, maybe they did. However, that doesn't suddenly make bitcoin evil or take away any of its utility or potential.
Entirely wrong, you shouldn't assume. Totally sidestepped a clear bubble, also sidestepped getting involved in 2015.
Bought some recently, sold most of it for a steady profit. No emotional horse in the race.....0 -
Absolutely neither!!!
I like efficiency and things that work.
On part (c) you are so far off the mark I don't even know what the point is? You money is your money, enjoy it. Are you a miner?0 -
Don't paraphrase me.
I've told you once already - you won't be dictating anything to me. You can ask politely if you wish (generally people respond politely if you don't act like a disingenuous tool).
You highlighted the bloody section in bold! Everyone sees it and it changes nothing. Let me put that in bold. NOTHING.Don't paraphrase me. Quote me in full or not at all. I did not say merely A or B, there.
See above!You are again lying about what I have said, by selectively leaving out what was said in my post.0 -
So let me see if I can understand this a bit better....Entirely wrong, you shouldn't assume. Totally sidestepped a clear bubble, also sidestepped getting involved in 2015.
Bought some recently, sold most of it for a steady profit. No emotional horse in the race.....
You get on your high horse about people speculating on bitcoin, about greed, and about your (ll-conceived) notion that it's ruining the planet etc. - and then in the same breath you turn around and tell us about your skills in speculating on bitcoin. That all makes a lot of sense!I like efficiency and things that work.
On part (c) you are so far off the mark I don't even know what the point is? You money is your money, enjoy it. Are you a miner?
Once again, you have no right to dictate to anyone what they invest their capital in. That's their opportunity cost - not yours. It has nothing to do with you. Nor does it have any affect on the planet if stranded renewable power is being used.0 -
Advertisement
-
makeorbrake wrote: »So let me see if I can understand this a bit better....
You get on your high horse about people speculating on bitcoin, about greed, etc. - and then in the same breath you turn around and tell us about your skills in speculating on bitcoin. That all makes a lot of sense!
Once again, you have no right to dictate to anyone what they invest their capital in. That's their opportunity cost - not yours. It has nothing to do with you. Nor does it have any affect on the planet if stranded renewable power is being used.
I just got in and out, no skill, missed some profit but happy to be "risk off". I don't trust it to not divebomb and can live with missing out if it goes to the moon. The difference is I consumed minimal energy in all this (although maybe i'm complicit to a degree in the waste...ah well, imperfect world)
If you decided to go setup a one man fracking band I would criticise it in the same way. You can spend your money how you like, I can have my opinion on the morality of it.
I have no issue with speculation , I have an issue with sharks who trick people out of their money with sharp FOMO practices, pump and dump all that. I don't mind the idea of credit, but I hate pay day loans to draw an analogy.
I am criticising the idea that it is a viable store of wealth. That is bogus to me. You can't say it is workably multipurpose with a straight face.
You can wage war with Kyuss, but I'm just shooting the breeze here and don't want anything aggressive.0 -
You keep saying the energy would be otherwise wasted which isn't true. It can be viably repurposed. No argument unless you want to defy physics.
The green angle is news to me and encouraging I suppose.0 -
Oh really? It would be a tad difficult for you to have an issue with speculation given that you've been a participant.I have no issue with speculation
Although it's a bit rich bitching about environmental damage and being a participant in it yourself (even if you're wayward in your environmental damage claims...more to the point, because of them and what you believe).
People are responsible for their own decisions. Are you saying that if you make a risky speculative investment, it's all good if it works out but the minute it doesn't it's someone elses fault?I have an issue with sharks who trick people out of their money with sharp FOMO practices, pump and dump all that.
There are scammers and muppets to be found associated with all manner of things - all can be found online. It's not specific to bitcoin - albeit they do tend to use the backdrop of something new and misunderstood. That's not a reflection on the technology or the otherwise good actors in the space. Furthermore, if someone decides to spend time listening to one of these charlatans, that's on them. We're all adults and take responsibility for our own actions.
That's your opinion - and you're entitled to an opinion. However, you can take your suggestion of any dis-ingenuity on my part and shove it where the sun don't shine. I very much believe that it is in the process of establishing itself as a store of value/digital gold/a hedge against fiat currency. That's what I believe. What you believe is a matter for yourself.I am criticising the idea that it is a viable store of wealth. That is bogus to me. You can't say it is workably multipurpose with a straight face.
Eh, it very much is true. I'll try this one more time. Green energy is abundant and we only capture a fraction of it.You keep saying the energy would be otherwise wasted which isn't true.
Let's take Plouton Mining - who are building the worlds biggest solar mining farm in the Mojave desert. They invest to make that possible. The energy produced is theirs. Even if they wanted to, it's far from a centre of population so it can't be used elsewhere. So the energy is going to the only purpose it could possibly have in that location - bitcoin mining.
Tell me where the harm is there? Tell me what business it is of yours to demand that that energy be used for another purpose (not that that's even possible in this instance)?
No it can't. Electricity doesn't travel well and there is wastage and cost implications if you try and start moving it over large distances. No doubt you'll suggest next that it doesn't matter and volunteer to spend their money on moving it - and suffer the cost of the energy losses (and be happy to waste more energy).It can be viably repurposed.
Well, it should be encouraging. These guys are toast if they can't get the most efficient energy there is. The most efficient energy is going to be renewable. As they keep trying to get the edge in that respect, they're driving efficiency where energy production is concerned.The green angle is news to me and encouraging I suppose.0 -
Blockchain tech is decent and valuable to the world, but not for this.
This generation of cryptocurrencies is completely useless transactionally, many retail/online outlets who took bitcoin etc.. Have stopped. Ransomware, money laundering and drugs are its main transactional uses. They're almost certainly never coming back from that and almost any ‘anonymous, distributed, untraceable’ currency will be used for the exact same thing as its popularity increases.
As an investment / speculated commodity it has some value and crypto bro’s im sure have made gains and laugh away from their ma’s basement with gordon gecko notions in their heads, but realistically the big boys in from the start have been selling them tickets to the ferris wheel ‘hodl’ ‘its going to make great gains etc...
You could turn all the fiat money in the world into bitcoin tomorrow if you wanted to, it would increase in price to take the load. You try turn even a reasonable amount of bitcoin into fiat and the value plumets, the exchange locks you out or wont take the offer etc... its a one way door and you may aswell buy the rights to the moon, one way door with no way back to real world profits.
Crypto at present more resembles a ponzi scheme than an investment.
Also somebody mentioned ‘renewable fuelled mining op’s in rural places, absolute tripe and nobody would even care enough to do it , if youre buying in to a mine theres a 99% chance its an antminer knockoff in some giant old bicycle factory in rural china being powered by coal because you want the highest returns. Bitcoin has no morals or ethics about it , nor do its proponents.0 -
makeorbrake wrote:Oh really? It would be a tad difficult for you to have an issue with speculation given that you've been a participant. Although it's a bit rich bitching about environmental damage and being a participant in it yourself (even if you're wayward in your environmental damage claims...more to the point, because of them and what you believe).
Its virtually impossible to exist on this planet at the moment without having some negative effect on the environment, such is the complexity of the problem, most, if not all humans are causing some sort of damage to the planet0 -
The idea that there is nothing better to do with energy than mine Bitcoin is inane bullshit - you'd swear there wasn't such a thing as long distance transmission of energy, nor better stuff to do with similar computing power resources...
Then when you point this out, it's a bait-and-switch into a discussion about 'freedom' - as if diverting renewables into wasted work, and preventing them from reducing carbon emissions from useful work, doesn't harm the climate - when it absolutely does.0 -
Bitcoin hit some snags in terms of transaction cost/time. However, that doesn't mean that issues cannot be overcome. That issue is being overcome through layer 1 solution, Lightning Network where transactions take seconds and fees are pennies.Eric Cartman wrote: »This generation of cryptocurrencies is completely useless transactionally, many retail/online outlets who took bitcoin etc.. Have stopped.
1 Percent - that's the level of illicit transactions carried out using bitcoin in 2019. The vast majority of illicit transactions are carried out using cash.Eric Cartman wrote: »Ransomware, money laundering and drugs are its main transactional uses.
I disagree. Paypal are gearing up to offer crypto - exposing it to 325 million active account holders. The number of bitcoin addresses holding greater than 0.1BTC reached a new all time high of over 3 million in June. The OCC in the US gave banks the OK to custody crypto last week.Eric Cartman wrote: »They're almost certainly never coming back from that
See above. Data shows that not to be the case. However, to be clear - if it were the case or it becomes the case, so what? If decentralised cryptocurrency like bitcoin can act as a societal good, the fact that a minority use it for illicit activity is not a reason to deprive the rest of society from using it.Eric Cartman wrote: »almost any ‘anonymous, distributed, untraceable’ currency will be used for the exact same thing as its popularity increases.
You made the same claims in 2018 but still no sign of it all coming tumbling down. All I've seen since then is bitcoin and digital assets generally moving forward in terms of the infrastructure being built out for it. When does it fall apart then Eric?Eric Cartman wrote: »realistically the big boys in from the start have been selling them tickets to the ferris wheel ‘hodl’ ‘its going to make great gains etc...
And you're using that experience from over 2 years ago as a reference point. That's outdated. The Coinbases, Krakens and Bitstamps of this world have become much more professional since then.Eric Cartman wrote: »You could turn all the fiat money in the world into bitcoin tomorrow if you wanted to, it would increase in price to take the load. You try turn even a reasonable amount of bitcoin into fiat and the value plumets, the exchange locks you out or wont take the offer etc... its a one way door and you may aswell buy the rights to the moon, one way door with no way back to real world profits.
And in 2018, you claimed the very same thing. I corrected you on it (just as I corrected someone else on it here) and you agreed back then you shouldn't call it a ponzi scheme. For a ponzi scheme to exist, there has to be some central entity hustling that ponzi. That's not the case - never was, never will be. Furthermore, we're eleven years down the road - how many years are you claiming this 'ponzi' will run for? Not credible and on a more basic level, simply not accurate.Eric Cartman wrote: »Crypto at present more resembles a ponzi scheme than an investment.
Yeah, except that the facts demonstrate that you have no notion what you're talking about.Eric Cartman wrote: »Also somebody mentioned ‘renewable fuelled mining op’s in rural places, absolute tripe and nobody would even care enough to do it
Layer One Technologies Opened Its Mining Plant in West Texas earlier this year - using renewables.
Bitmain opened a 50MW plant there - again, using renewables. German firm Northern Data is in the middle of building a plant there - using renewables.
Plouton Mining have a 50 acre site in the Movaje desert - using renewables. There are a gazillion other examples - using hydro in China, New York State, Canada, using hot springs in Iceland. One company specialises in setting up kit to mine flared off gas in remote oil fields in the US and Canada. Power stations around the world are installing miners - to make use of excess power that is otherwise wasted. Your 'absolute tripe' claim doesn't check out.
What the hell does that even mean?:rolleyes:Eric Cartman wrote: »Bitcoin has no morals or ethics about it , nor do its proponents.
Bitcoin doesn't have feelings - it's a tool - which allows people to store and transact value.
You said back in 2018 that you were sore about bitcoin because "it completely upset the price of computer hardware"....a gig that you were involved with. I guess time hasn't helped to ease that bitterness.0 -
That may be - but I'm not sure what that has to do with us here. I've outed this fallacy that bitcoin ruins the world. It can't if over three quarters of mining facilities use renewables....and all the while, people conveniently forget that it has a purpose - which is to secure the network and confirm transactions on the network.Wanderer78 wrote: »Its virtually impossible to exist on this planet at the moment without having some negative effect on the environment, such is the complexity of the problem, most, if not all humans are causing some sort of damage to the planet
Except you don't get to decide what people decide to allocate resources to.The idea that there is nothing better to do with energy than mine Bitcoin is inane bullshit - you'd swear there wasn't such a thing as long distance transmission of energy, nor better stuff to do with similar computing power resources...
A private company allocates millions to set up a plant in the desert - which uses renewables. That doesn't harm anyone. I don't care that your politically motivated with your commentary on 'liberatarians' and 'freedom' in your hate for decentralised digital currency. You can scream bloody blue murder all you wish - this development is ongoing.Then when you point this out, it's a bait-and-switch into a discussion about 'freedom' - as if diverting renewables into wasted work, and preventing them from reducing carbon emissions from useful work, doesn't harm the climate - when it absolutely does.0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »That may be - but I'm not sure what that has to do with us here. I've outed this fallacy that bitcoin ruins the world. It can't if over three quarters of mining use renewables....and all the while, people conveniently forget that it has a purpose - which is to secure the network and confirm transactions on the network.
how do you know that over 75% of the energy used to mine was indeed renewable?
bitcoin, in its current form, cannot be considered a currency, due to its volatility in valuation, its currently simply a commodity, and id say the traders are having some crack with it, looting folks all over the planet0 -
Advertisement
-
Exactly as I said, 'but freedom' becomes the bait-and-switch.
Notice the abundant quote-mining, where he quotes the bit of sentences he wants to reply to, and leaves out the bit of the same sentence that already contradicts his reply - making the reply redundant, and an exercise in wilfully ignoring what the other person has said, in order to keep on pushing the advertisement - like the quote here, where the bolded bit was left out:Eric Cartman wrote:Also somebody mentioned ‘renewable fuelled mining op’s in rural places, absolute tripe and nobody would even care enough to do it , if youre buying in to a mine theres a 99% chance its an antminer knockoff in some giant old bicycle factory in rural china being powered by coal because you want the highest returns.
(Not in reply to quoted poster[noparse]:)[/noparse] Using renewables to do wasted work - instead of using them to reduce emissions from useful work - which is inherently working against reducing carbon emissions. In addition to the obvious fact that a huge, likely vast majority of the work (remember, enough Terra-Watt hours to rival a moderately sized country...) is not from renewables - and even where it is, that's preventing those renewables from offsetting carbon emissions from actual useful work...0
Advertisement