3 ms·
It's not, unless you think that e.g. cyanobacteria causing the Great Oxidation Event were somehow objectively more useful than cryptocurrencies. Mind you the G
by Isinlor 6y ago
It's not, unless you think that e.g. cyanobacteria causing the Great Oxidation Event were somehow objectively more useful than cryptocurrencies.
Mind you the Great Oxidation Event wiped good chunk of life back then.
Mainly because oxygen was toxic to anaerobic life and it also oxidized methane making Earth into a snowball.
- bobthechef 6y ago"Use" is always in relation to an someone's or something's end. Without knowing what the relevant ones are, the comparison fails.
- maxerickson 6y agoFor all us, uh, air breathing mammals, yes, the great oxidation event was a great deal more useful, objectively, than cryptocurrencies.
- Isinlor 6y agoThe main point is that this hunger for resources without regard for consequences is the very core of life. We did not exist back then. And cyanobacteria did not have a great plan of creating mammals.
- maxerickson 6y agoNote that I qualified my statement. I didn't say that the great oxygenation event was objectively useful to the moon, I said it was objectively more useful to air breathing mammals than running difficult computations to control write access to a ledger. The random waste from cryptocurrencies just turns into heat, so I expect it opens up ~zero new possibilities. Have fun though!
- Out_of_Characte 6y agoHow would you even define 'more usefull' in this context? How is cryptocurrency waste heat different from bank server waste heat? Only because crypto has a dramatically worse efficiency? I guess both my crypto wallet and my bank account are products of waste heat that produce zero new possibilities.
- maxerickson 6y agoThe comparison was to oxygen. And then I'm separately making the claim that using proof of work won't set the stage for anything interesting in the future, no matter how much heat it generates.