3 ms·

That's a very ignorant opinion, considering that proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies have insignificant emissions.

• jf22 8y ago
  Sure, there are probably nuances to account for like how much energy generation is used.
  • hwillis 8y ago
    Not sure if you're understanding what he's saying, but just in case: Bitcoin and similar are Proof-of-Work currencies, which have you do arbitrary hashes to prove that you deserve a vote on the blockchain. The cost of that computing energy makes it infeasible to generate bad votes when the entire community is voting against you. Ethereum and similar are Proof-of-Stake, which require you to own coins to vote on the blockchain. That doesn't require any computational effort since it's easy to verify that you actually own the currency. Given that it's distributed, it still requires more energy to reach consensus than a centralized system, but it's basically infinitesimal. For all practical purposes it can be ignored.
    • jf22 8y ago
      Oh I see, thanks for pointing that out.