3 ms·
>This is not just some article, it's a peer-reviewed study from the University of Arizona. When junk science is peer-reviewed, it's even more of a problem.
by kspacewalk2 6y ago
>This is not just some article, it's a peer-reviewed study from the University of Arizona.
When junk science is peer-reviewed, it's even more of a problem.
- _Microft 6y agoSure, but how do you tell that this is "junk science" as you call it?
- falcolas 6y agoPerhaps it disagrees with their personal worldview, because it would make their Bitcoin investment a questionable move for the world. There's a lot of justification going on around people's bitcoin investments; you can't say a negative thing about it right now without being dogpiled.
- effie 6y agoBad arguments. Estimating social benefit of cryptocurrencies by the dollar cost of mining operations is obviously incorrect. No perspective on the big picture. Pollution they talk about is happening at power plants, not mining rigs. Net electric energy consumption of cryptocurrencies is less than 1% of world total. Proposing targeted regulation policies on minor consumer classes, no mention of big problems(transport, coal plants) and big solutions (nuclear energy). Looks very biased. This looks like a nice lobby/news propaganda scribble from a think tank working against cryptocurrencies. Not as a scientific paper.