5 ms·

If you're concerned about energy usage, there are much bigger fish to fry than Bitcoin mining. But if you want, s/Bitcoin/Libra. A computer can't get a bank acc

by zelly 6y ago

If you're concerned about energy usage, there are much bigger fish to fry than Bitcoin mining. But if you want, s/Bitcoin/Libra. A computer can't get a bank account, but it can get a crypto wallet.

louwrentius 6y ago
I'm opposed to the whole concept of cryptocurrencies. Google 'cryptocurrencies louwrentius' to understand my position.
- strombofulous 6y ago
  I agree with that but these are specifically RPIs running on solar power (which, btw, will be useless for mining btc), so they will be completly wasteless (the energy goes to waste otherwise). The only exception would be if you somehow rose the cost of mining for others, which would not happen since you're using pis to mine btc. Except I guess the environmental cost of producing these pis, but unless you buy tens of thousands your purchase would be a rounding error
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 6y ago
    Every project is a global rounding error environmentally, that doesn’t mean they’re harmless. The real yardstick is simply a cost vs benefit equation as we can’t mitigate everything. On that scale a project trike this is extremely harmful as the benefit is nonexistent and the harm is real.
  - loktarogar 6y ago
    locally no impact, globally supporting a system that burns enormous amounts of power (of which much is co2 producing). would be a cool little project, and it falls to you to decide which side of the ethics of it you subscribe to. I would love to have a little cryptocurrency miner, completely self sufficient, just doing its own thing until it dies. but I would also love a cryptocurrency that didn't have the same kind of environmental impact that bitcoin has. maybe another application? selling computing power?
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Are you also opposed to automobiles?
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    You inclined at all to explain where you see these two being comparable? I’m lost as to what it is you’re trying to say with this statement.
    - GoatHerders2 6y ago
      Bizarre sentence structure you got there! 'You inlined at all' is very aggressive. It's a question, nothing is being stated, it's a question. Your hostility and ignorance lead me to believe you're just a troll. Automobiles and Bitcoin are both Objects. It's not right/normal to have feelings about them like they care.
      - dvtrn 6y ago
        Sorry of my brevity caused you any frustration but I find it’s usually easier to ask questions and seek mutual understanding and clarity rather than make assumptions and accusations about intentions and torpedo the conversation before it’s even got going.
  - asveikau 6y ago
    I am, or at least I think they should be used sparingly. They destroy the planet. And on a personal scale, over-reliance upon them encourages lack of exercise and a needlessly stressful life spent in traffic. I reckon we could make a big dent in pollution and obesity rates by having most people reduce their car usage.
- dng88 6y ago
  Against bitcoin ok use too much energy but general idea of cyber one. The paper one as m1 is always less then m3 the virtual one. Just want to trust 1 Gov?
- shpongled 6y ago
  From your article: > Cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value. They are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. How is this any different from US dollars, gold, or anything besides food, medicine, and shelter? > Cryptocurrencies facilitate crime Once again, the same argument could be applied to US dollars
  - dhosek 6y ago
    US dollars are the only accepted means to pay taxes. This is the big thing that makes national currencies work. Having a government behind a currency may not be a sufficient guarantee of value but it is, at least so far, a necessary one. For bitcoin at least, it's an intrinsically deflationary currency. There's no incentive to spend a bitcoin today if it will be worth more tomorrow, so it ends up being primarily a currency of choice for transactions which are unfeasible in any other way, which ends up being primarily illegal transactions.
    - _eht 6y ago
      >US dollars are the only accepted means to pay taxes. I agree with this, of course. But there is also a method that allows me to convert my AUS dollar in to US dollar. I just paid my taxes with $AUS? Does the logic follow: $BTC->$USD->USTAXES ?
      - notahacker 6y ago
        Your ability to convert your Aussie dollar holdings into US dollars with ease is contingent on there being a relatively stable demand for Aussie dollars, which are the only legal means of paying taxes in Australia, and settling debts denominated in Aussie dollars. Cryptocurrencies are not a legal means of payment of taxes and are not created as debt so lack that guarantee that people will want to exchange significant quantities of USD for that coin [I guess in theory some cryptocurrency could have the property of being emitted as debt, but I'm not sure decentralisation and credit creation go well together].
        6y ago

by zelly 6y ago

If you're concerned about energy usage, there are much bigger fish to fry than Bitcoin mining. But if you want, s/Bitcoin/Libra. A computer can't get a bank account, but it can get a crypto wallet.

louwrentius 6y ago

I'm opposed to the whole concept of cryptocurrencies. Google 'cryptocurrencies louwrentius' to understand my position.

strombofulous 6y ago
I agree with that but these are specifically RPIs running on solar power (which, btw, will be useless for mining btc), so they will be completly wasteless (the energy goes to waste otherwise). The only exception would be if you somehow rose the cost of mining for others, which would not happen since you're using pis to mine btc. Except I guess the environmental cost of producing these pis, but unless you buy tens of thousands your purchase would be a rounding error
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 6y ago
  Every project is a global rounding error environmentally, that doesn’t mean they’re harmless. The real yardstick is simply a cost vs benefit equation as we can’t mitigate everything. On that scale a project trike this is extremely harmful as the benefit is nonexistent and the harm is real.
- loktarogar 6y ago
  locally no impact, globally supporting a system that burns enormous amounts of power (of which much is co2 producing). would be a cool little project, and it falls to you to decide which side of the ethics of it you subscribe to. I would love to have a little cryptocurrency miner, completely self sufficient, just doing its own thing until it dies. but I would also love a cryptocurrency that didn't have the same kind of environmental impact that bitcoin has. maybe another application? selling computing power?
forgotmypw17 6y ago
Are you also opposed to automobiles?
- dvtrn 6y ago
  You inclined at all to explain where you see these two being comparable? I’m lost as to what it is you’re trying to say with this statement.
  - GoatHerders2 6y ago
    Bizarre sentence structure you got there! 'You inlined at all' is very aggressive. It's a question, nothing is being stated, it's a question. Your hostility and ignorance lead me to believe you're just a troll. Automobiles and Bitcoin are both Objects. It's not right/normal to have feelings about them like they care.
    - dvtrn 6y ago
      Sorry of my brevity caused you any frustration but I find it’s usually easier to ask questions and seek mutual understanding and clarity rather than make assumptions and accusations about intentions and torpedo the conversation before it’s even got going.
- asveikau 6y ago
  I am, or at least I think they should be used sparingly. They destroy the planet. And on a personal scale, over-reliance upon them encourages lack of exercise and a needlessly stressful life spent in traffic. I reckon we could make a big dent in pollution and obesity rates by having most people reduce their car usage.
dng88 6y ago
Against bitcoin ok use too much energy but general idea of cyber one. The paper one as m1 is always less then m3 the virtual one. Just want to trust 1 Gov?
shpongled 6y ago
From your article: > Cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value. They are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. How is this any different from US dollars, gold, or anything besides food, medicine, and shelter? > Cryptocurrencies facilitate crime Once again, the same argument could be applied to US dollars
- dhosek 6y ago
  US dollars are the only accepted means to pay taxes. This is the big thing that makes national currencies work. Having a government behind a currency may not be a sufficient guarantee of value but it is, at least so far, a necessary one. For bitcoin at least, it's an intrinsically deflationary currency. There's no incentive to spend a bitcoin today if it will be worth more tomorrow, so it ends up being primarily a currency of choice for transactions which are unfeasible in any other way, which ends up being primarily illegal transactions.
  - _eht 6y ago
    >US dollars are the only accepted means to pay taxes. I agree with this, of course. But there is also a method that allows me to convert my AUS dollar in to US dollar. I just paid my taxes with $AUS? Does the logic follow: $BTC->$USD->USTAXES ?
    - notahacker 6y ago
      Your ability to convert your Aussie dollar holdings into US dollars with ease is contingent on there being a relatively stable demand for Aussie dollars, which are the only legal means of paying taxes in Australia, and settling debts denominated in Aussie dollars. Cryptocurrencies are not a legal means of payment of taxes and are not created as debt so lack that guarantee that people will want to exchange significant quantities of USD for that coin [I guess in theory some cryptocurrency could have the property of being emitted as debt, but I'm not sure decentralisation and credit creation go well together].
      - 6y ago