RT @FedericoTenga: Year 2067, Northern Wastelands
"Granpa is it true that in the old days it was possible to see the sun?"
"Yes, but then Bitcoin polluted the air and obscured the sun"
"Why didnt you stop it?"
"Oh we tried, we tried everything in our power, but Bitcoin just could not be killed" https://t.co/T9wTINzINk
RT @stevanlohja: You share an article promoting the absolute power (government) to use their absolute power to tread on another group's sovereignty (#Bitcoin community/ PoW community) and the best advice you got is for #EthereumClassic to conform... https://t.co/Wz0gGsQ7j3
RT @andrewgdotcom: If #Bitcoin were to cease trading tomorrow, 0.5% of the world’s electricity demand would simply disappear – which would cover one year’s worth of the carbon emission cuts required to limit temperature rises this century to 2C. https://t.co/eiF9FIz2fh
Bitcoin feeds mostly from the hydroelectric power that isn't needed, so if you shut it down carbon emissions stay the same. In fact, it's a great way to rebalance 3-phase power grids. https://t.co/rEuAztPoLx
Haven’t we debated this topic to exhaustion? If the concern really is carbon emissions, I’m sure there are higher ROI investments than trying to kill a decentralized store of value with words. https://t.co/HvaHViEC88
I got a better idea @andrewgdotcom If peeps would stop drinking beer, liquor, wine & stop looking at porn on the internet tomorrow, 10% of the world’s electricity demand would simply disappear and we could save Bitcoin, the world and many sinner's souls! #BitcoinMustLive 🏴☠️ https://t.co/4iZBl8OPlV
Converting energy into money that belongs to the people is far more useful then the wast of fiat with its traditional banking systems including millions of ATMs, credit card terminal, etc.
Also, Bitcoin sets high incentives for renewable energy. https://t.co/Ul44G6jV1j
Bitcoin needs to ideally be surpassed by a cryptocurrency that doesn't require mining. I think the idea of independent global currency still has its merits.
I'd also add that while Bitcoin has an environmental impact, so does your traditional banks too. Those monolithic bank buildings with their employees, heating, facilities and data centres don't run on 0 electricity. I don't know what the difference in power consumption is though.
People buy guns, drugs and child porn with traditional currency as well. Bitcoin is a terrible way to buy those things because it is still traceable. In terms of legitimate uses, cryptocurrencies can:
- Allow you to send and receive currency to anywhere in the world without a middle man or large fees. With many of the technologies it is instant or near instant.
- No one else controls your money, you don't have to worry about a bank, fees with them or other issues. If you're living in an unstable country, the government can't just easily seize your money.
- It's difficult for merchants to add additional fees without requesting permission first.
- Merchants do not have to worry about charge backs or other issues. The blockchain/public ledger also prevents merchants from being scammed with fake currency.
- Many cryptocurrency protocols cannot be directly manipulated by governments or banks.
Thats just a few rough advantages from my head. Regardless, just because some people use something illegally doesn't mean it is universally a bad thing. It is worth noting that the public nature of the Bitcoin block-chain has led to law enforcement developing analysis strategies to catch such criminals (which has already led to arrests). Something that may not happen with other back channels for buying such goods.
Block-chain technologies are the future of currencies, most banks are now hiring blockchain engineers based on their benefits. Not to mention the use of smart contracts and tying data to these transactions is a very powerful thing. This will make the management of transactions and services a lot easier.
I'm all for eliminating bitcoin. Ignoring climate concerns, it's a currency used for black market trading at worst. At best, it's a scam and a waste of time. But going after bitcoin miners instead of corporate power systems seems like a huge waste of time. We need to begin by tightening government regulations on large organizations.
Don't talk to me about what I can personally do to save the environment when the people most responsible get free passes. That's just derailing the conversation.
There is something to be said about the pollution bitcoin generates but the idea that it needs to die imo is a really backwards way of looking at things.
Bitcoin needs to evolve not get lost. Its really not bitcoins fault. The technology will get better and smarter. Banning bitcoins isnt going to fix a thing. For starters another digital currency will take its place.
This whole thing seems similar to putting a piece of duct tape on a massive crack in a dam to 'fix' it.
Bitcoin is shit but fuck this divide and rule bullshit. Turning the serfs and the serf-adjacents against each other while the real perpetrators laugh it off.
Newsflash kids. You can ban bitcoin. You can ban straws. You can shame your friends for not having an electric car. You can shame your friends for having an electric car rather than maintaining an older car (see it's great, works both ways). It won't make any fucking difference and the only reason these arguments even enter conversation is as a distraction.
The killer is industry. Big oil. Big farming (not to be confused with big pharma). Either we get industry to stop using fossil fuels, stop deforestation, stop producing billions of fat bastard farting cows, or we cross the point of no return in (checks watch) eleven years and eleven months is it now?
We could all start living green as we've been told to by the media tomorrow and it would not fucking save us.
So, yeah. Don't start a beef with the bitcoiners. Don't start a beef with the redneck prick with his truck that blarts out black smoke because he thinks it's funny. They are the sideshow. They are nothing. As with so many issues in the world, when you take a good look, it turns out the person fucking you over is the rich prick on the yacht.
We need to be smarter than this holy shit it's not like it's a new trick.
I can't stand butters because of their smug attitude towards investing while they promote an obviously worthless asset. The whole straw thing is hilarious because it's a perfect example for how capitalism hijacks and commodifies anti capitalist movements
This all *sounds* good, but aren't the serfs the actual problem here? That is to say, isn't the *actual* problem with bitcoin that millions of people around the world are individually mining and gobbling up electricity?
I could be wrong, but my understanding of bitcoin is that its decentralized nature makes its individual users the real villains, as opposed to some big corporate usual suspect.
Bitcoin mining has long since become heavily centralized due to economies of scale. It can only be performed """efficiently""" with expensive, purpose-built hardware, and even then is only barely profitable if you're operating in a country with cheap electricity (mainly China).
Of course these companies only do that because they can sell the coins to individual speculators and this waste is fundamental to Bitcoin's design and cannot be reduced, so that hardly absolves users of responsibility. Some other cryptocurrencies have tried to keep mining in the hands of individuals with varying degrees of success.
No because the point is that bitcoin use is having a negligible effect in the grand scheme of things.
Seriously, when you start looking up the chain to where the real environmental damage is being done it comes down to a few hundred CEOs and heads of state who are running things like the baddies out of Captain Planet.
Okay, well I'm not an expert, but it seems like a lot of the reports coming out lately are showing that bitcoin *is* having a substantial effect on global electricity consumption, and that it's going to keep growing.
It's clearly not the worst problem in the world, but I'm not convinced it's negligible.
Bitcoin users aren't serfs. 1000 people own 40% of it and it uses more energy than Ireland, and it doubled that consumption over a single year. This is an artificial currency that uses real resources to drive artificial value into the hands of a small cabal of people who have established a fiefdom of peak capitalism worse per capita than the excesses of current capitalism.
It deserves to be attacked. The guys who created, market, and push bitcoin are increasingly capitalist godkings who are using ambitious cannon fodder in a pyramid scheme and to convince the population that it's the gateway to a liberated middle class existence free from the tyranny of the state instead of making new tyrants.
And attacking it now as an example builds the tools necessary to prepare for the next wave of capitalist innovations designed to build a foundation of incredible speculative wealth and greed at the expense of resources solely for the benefit of a handful of manipulative bourgies.
There are other cryptocurrencies. Line them up and take a shot because none of them want to reveal what you have to sacrifice for them to exist. Better prepare in advance to demand transparency and dispense as necessary.
They are serf-adjacent. The people whose decisions determine whether or not the planet survives climate change number less than a thousand.
Edited to add by way of explanation. Heads of state and CEOs are doing all the damage, relatively speaking. We have no power to change anything unless we change those heads of state and maybe CEOs where possible. But past that there is nothing we can do with our lifestyles to help at this point. And this applies if you're a hermit in a yurt or a dudebro with a bitcoin farm.
The "big fish" in the bitcoin world, if they aren't CEO's, they're CEO-adjacent and their advocacy helps keep those less-than-a-thousand people in their positions.
If this logic of 'adjacency' works at the bottom of the wealth and power scale, it works at the top too.
It doesn't really work at the top, insomuch as if I'm the head of state for a country like the USA or Australia or the UK, I could carry out reforms that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a stroke. If I'm just some rich guy, sure I'm safe from the worst of the consequences of climate change, but I can't really stop it either.
If it were magically possible to change the minds of the thousand most influential people on the climate change issue, the problem goes away. We are dealing with the consequences of decisions made by a tiny number of people.
This isn't even conspiracy theory stuff, because it's not like these folks are a secret cabal or anything, it's just that late capitalism has consolidated nearly all the economic power in the world into the hands of a few CEOs of a few corporations. That's literally what late capitalism was always expected to do, and it has. By the same token imperialism has meant that maybe twenty heads of state are in charge of most of the people in the world.
Amen. Don't hate your people for being smug super woke vegan arseholes. Don't hate your friends for eating 100 burgers a year.
Hate the fucking system that forces you to define your relationships and identity by the things you consume.
Yes, people who make an effort to not feed the industrial ranching system that kills billions of animals in nightmare inducing ways and propagates an unfair wage system should never call out or even feel resentment to those that cant be arsed to make a minimum effort, how dare they?
I respect the effort but even if everybody did that it won't change anything.
This is the scam we've been sold. Climate change isn't something *we* did and that *we* need to fix. Our governments did it when they tested 2000+ nuclear weapons, when they bulldozed forests for farming and factories, when they designed almost every major population centre in the world for the last sixty years around cars. And the companies did it when they decided everything has to run on petrol, or be made out of plastic.
You want proof? Look at how quickly CFCs in aerosols and fridges got fixed when there was an ozone layer hole. That business got handled at speed. Why? Because there's no OPEC for CFCs. There's no lobbyist for CFCs dangling money for politicians. There was no multi-million dollar media push to suppress the science behind the ozone layer hole.
Eat meat, don't eat meat, I don't care it's just a personal choice. Unless you own a dairy empire your personal choice doesn't mean shit.
Calling people out doesn't make a damn bit of difference. It's just a way to make you feel better. How you feel won't save the planet.
In fact, if you want to help save the world maybe you'll have to feel really shitty about yourself. Like, in an irredeemable can't go back kind of way.
I mean, I wish it could be done with paper straws, farmers markets and tote bags because all that is great fun. But somehow I doubt it.
I'm just guessing, but I'd say they were about to use one of the common gotchas for "Bitcoin is bad for the environment" , which is trying to say that your personal use of a car outweighs any individual's damage to the environment mining bitcoin. Either that, or that vehicles taken in aggregate are more damaging to the environment than bitcoin. Libertarians have been throwing that one out literally since the first "Bitcoin is bad for the environment" articles appeared, and other bitcoin people rapidly followed. The libertarians in turn got it from the anti-vegans/anti-vegetarians, who used to use it with different proper nouns, when trying to shit on people who stopped eating meat for environmental reasons.
Which is stupid, because while people should arrive to drive less, many people live in environments where it is impossible to get by without driving. But nobody exists in an environment where Bitcoin is fundamental to getting by.
Convincing the public climate destruction was the sole responsibility and purview of individual consumers, as opposed to a collective, legislative issue, was a neat trick pulled on us by late capitalist industry. And it still seems to be working swimmingly.
Stop feeling anxious and ashamed of your individual consumption habits, start making collective, organized demands on our systems to handle industry and destructive capitalism.
Capitalism commodifies everything, so capitalism's response to climate change has been to commodify action against climate change.
You can now buy a million different products on the marketing pitch they're better for the environment.
Except we're not doing any better, the climate continues to worsen and selling more crap won't change that.
Use cash, truly anonymous.
And since everybody uses cash, nobody will suspect you of buying child porn or crystal meth, even if that's what you're actually buying.
With Bitcoin on the other hand... Every law enforcement agency now wants to go through your hard drives, even if you just bought alpaca socks (and we all know you didn't).
It has no real value because nobody is using it. You can't buy a house with Bitcoin. There aren't any contracts paid with Bitcoin. Your local convenience store won't accept it and neither will 99.99% of stores. The only real use it has historically seen is paying for drugs & speculation. In almost all cases if you want to actually use your bitcoins you have to transfer them to a legal currency like USD. I guess you could say it has some use as a "value storage" because of that.
This article suggests that we must stop consuming electricity in order to be sustainable. I would bet that once bitcoins have finished the mining process they are more sustainable than traditional currencies. Us dollars are made of cotton...
Maybe I sped through the article too quickly, but it seems to have made no mention of comparing crypto to other currency energy usage. Yes crypto uses energy, but so do the 10 or so banking branches in my town, and so does every credit card machine and point of sale system at every business. If you want to use total energy consumption as a means to judge sustainability, you would have to include time and energy spent figuring out your taxes as the 'hash rate' with standard currency. With a correctly configured crypto this would all happen instantly and wasted time and energy would be eliminated ie 'bob already made $10million this year so the rest is now taxed at 75%'.
And the skyscrapers in New York filled with data centers and b-school graduates. People think of money as little green pieces of paper, but whether it's government issued or secured by cryptography, it takes a lot of energy to maintain money.
I think that one of the points is that we have limited time to act for climate change, say 10-20 years. The current financial system is absolutely huge, but it provides millions of jobs and trillions of transaction, every day. Bitcoin has \*now\* a significant cost in terms of energy, and absolutely ridiculously insignificant impact in terms of usage. How many people use bitcoin for buying stuff? Most of it is trading on steroids. And \*now\* we have proof-of-work. And we have Chinese mining farm running on coal. \*At the moment\*, the Bitcoin community is just polluting for financial gain, at the worst possible moment.
The author of this article makes many assumptions about Bitcoin and the miners who secure the network.
At the end of the article, he assumes that all the electricity used in PoW mining is from coal plants. The truth is that the most profitable places to mine Bitcoin are those with cheap electricity, such as places with geothermal power. It is these places where many large mining companies have set up shop.
He makes the false equivalency that all Bitcoins made take a large amount of electricity to produce, and that this is like a shell currency. This is not the case. The energy used for mining is mostly for the purpose of securing the network (making 15 Bitcoins for each block at the moment), and the issue is that the electricity spend is incredibly redundant, which is what takes so much power.
Finally, Bitcoin will not just go away. That is kind of a point of a distributed network. The best we can hope for is that the development team agree on a hard fork to move Bitcoin away from a proof-of-work security scheme.
PS: The UN report he mentions at the beginning recommends that we stop eating animals first, and that's something we can actually make a difference with.
To your point about energy sources, crypto miners are looking for the lowest cost which is often hydro and geothermal. Chelan County Washington actually banned bitcoin miners from the power grid because the grid itself could not support the load despite abundant hydro power.
Likewise, there are more than a few reports that point to the capitalist framework as a primary driver of global warming. While addressing the underlying issues might be a longer term endeavor, technologies like bitcoin are likely spaces of resistance. I know that a lot of activity on the darknet is unsavory, but it's also helping to develop a world beyond borders. A secure world currency could do a lot to unify people from around the world more closely economically, which could in turn bring about political and social change (wild speculation on my part, but still a possibility worthy of development).
Even if bitcoin used 99% of our electric grid the trade off is incredibly valuable.
I can't wait for the studies to come out showing the ecological cost of not using bitcoin.
PoW encourages renewable energy: see China.
We have unlimited energy from the sun. If we need to ban wasteful uses of fossil fuels killing the thing that is making the transition from fossil fuels happen over night is the wrong choice.
Bitcoin is a win-win-win situation. Trying to kill it only makes it stronger.