3 ms·
I find this completely tone deaf, factually unconvincing, ignorant of the true required comparisons to the sum total power consumption of the whole transactiona
by mlthoughts2018 6y ago
I find this completely tone deaf, factually unconvincing, ignorant of the true required comparisons to the sum total power consumption of the whole transactional, fossil fuel and military industrial complex systems and infrastructure required to support the existence and usage of first world fiat currency.
“Bitcoin uses a lot of energy” utterly doesn’t mean anything on its own like this.
It’s infuriating to see such an intellectually dishonest and disgraceful, disingenuous line of argument taken with even the smallest modicum of seriousness.
This just needs to be ignored out of existence.
- Apocryphon 6y agoIt's by Stephen Diehl, and as much as this community thinks it's above arguments from authority/ad hominem attacks, it will still favor reputable sources as a means of filtering. So ignoring an argument from him will hardly be sufficient.
- mlthoughts2018 6y agoIt being by Stephen only lowers the credibility. This is the same guy who wrote up a big slide deck insulting all the cretin, moron programmers in his eyes who aren’t using functional programming, by saying we are in the “bloodletting and leeches” stage of software at this point of history. (And then he took down the slide deck after getting backlash.) Stephen is bombastic in all the worst ways, while insulting and looking down on other engineers. I’m willing to look past Stephen being the author and give the general story of Bitcoin power consumption a fair shake despite it (and a clear-minded assessment suggests it’s a total non-story), but Stephen being the author absolutely does not help with credibility.
- Apocryphon 6y agoI mostly know him as the Haskell expert, so good to know.