3 ms·
This is a pretty bad-faith "what-about-ism" response. The energy consumption downsides of proof-of-work systems are pretty well known. And those particular do
by jdmichal 6y ago
This is a pretty bad-faith "what-about-ism" response. The energy consumption downsides of proof-of-work systems are pretty well known. And those particular downsides don't apply to the systems you listed. Sure, running those systems still takes energy, and there's probably an interesting comment about what a ratio between the two might look like. But your comment as written is not that.
- ajkdhcb2 6y agoIt is not a whataboutism. Complaints about energy usage are only meaningful in comparison to the alternatives. >The energy consumption downsides of proof-of-work systems are pretty well known. And those particular downsides don't apply to the systems you listed. What? I have no idea what you're talking about. Proof of Work energy requirements are not necessarily proportional to usage of the chain, while almost every single complaint about it has made invalid extrapolations under that assumption. It can easily be incredibly more efficient than the existing financial system.
- jdmichal 6y ago> What? I have no idea what you're talking about. OK. https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption > Carbon footprint per transaction: 312.24 kg, estimated at 780,602 VISA transactions.