4 ms·

The difference between manufacturing and crypto is that manufacturing actually, you know, manufactures stuff. It makes stuff that is useful to people. It contri

by OskarS 6y ago

The difference between manufacturing and crypto is that manufacturing actually, you know, manufactures stuff. It makes stuff that is useful to people. It contributes to human society. The energy consumed to power cryptocurrencies contributes nothing to society. It's literally destroying the environment in order to run as many SHA256 hashes as possible per second.

matheusmoreira 6y ago
This problem is specific to proof of work systems. Alternative solutions are already being designed and implemented. Whether existing coins like bitcoin, ethereum and monero will implement these new systems is unknown. > The energy consumed to power cryptocurrencies contributes nothing to society. This is simply false. The energy spent guarantees the integrity of the decentralized ledgers that power cryptocurrencies. Perhaps there are better solutions out there but it's wrong to say that the energy consumption produces no value.
- OskarS 6y ago
  Whether or not other systems are possible is not really relevant: cryptocurrencies as they exist today work like this. The fact that one day potentially we will have proof-of-stake doesn't change the fact that today we are destroying the earth for no reason at all.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    Destroying the planet? Don't exaggerate. Even the submitted article has the following disclaimer: > Of course even these figures — and anything an individual does — are a drop in the ocean of global emissions (~50 billion tonnes CO2e). There are much higher priority targets for carbon footprint reduction. Eventually cryptocurrencies will use different less expensive algorithms and electricity generation and storage will be a lot friendlier to the environment.
- danaris 6y ago
  > The energy spent guarantees the integrity of the decentralized ledgers that power cryptocurrencies. This is not of anywhere near sufficient value to society to justify the obscene amount of resources consumed for it. Personally, I would say that it, in fact, contributes nothing to society.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    How is it not? With these systems people can transact with anyone else on the planet with near complete privacy and with no need to trust any third party. This is world-changing technology. You could say that the system is inefficient. I agree with that. It's not just energy consumption and carbon emissions either. Users literally pay the cost in the form of ridiculously expensive transaction processing fees. It must change in order to be more efficient and less expensive to use. I don't agree that it doesn't offer sufficient value to society. It's extremely valuable technology that is currently being limited by high costs. We need to drive the costs down.

by OskarS 6y ago

matheusmoreira 6y ago

This problem is specific to proof of work systems. Alternative solutions are already being designed and implemented. Whether existing coins like bitcoin, ethereum and monero will implement these new systems is unknown. > The energy consumed to power cryptocurrencies contributes nothing to society. This is simply false. The energy spent guarantees the integrity of the decentralized ledgers that power cryptocurrencies. Perhaps there are better solutions out there but it's wrong to say that the energy consumption produces no value.

OskarS 6y ago
Whether or not other systems are possible is not really relevant: cryptocurrencies as they exist today work like this. The fact that one day potentially we will have proof-of-stake doesn't change the fact that today we are destroying the earth for no reason at all.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  Destroying the planet? Don't exaggerate. Even the submitted article has the following disclaimer: > Of course even these figures — and anything an individual does — are a drop in the ocean of global emissions (~50 billion tonnes CO2e). There are much higher priority targets for carbon footprint reduction. Eventually cryptocurrencies will use different less expensive algorithms and electricity generation and storage will be a lot friendlier to the environment.
danaris 6y ago
> The energy spent guarantees the integrity of the decentralized ledgers that power cryptocurrencies. This is not of anywhere near sufficient value to society to justify the obscene amount of resources consumed for it. Personally, I would say that it, in fact, contributes nothing to society.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  How is it not? With these systems people can transact with anyone else on the planet with near complete privacy and with no need to trust any third party. This is world-changing technology. You could say that the system is inefficient. I agree with that. It's not just energy consumption and carbon emissions either. Users literally pay the cost in the form of ridiculously expensive transaction processing fees. It must change in order to be more efficient and less expensive to use. I don't agree that it doesn't offer sufficient value to society. It's extremely valuable technology that is currently being limited by high costs. We need to drive the costs down.