4 ms·

I am sorry that you did that. I believe that Bitcoin's intrinsic energy usage is a big big problem, and I would have been interested in a reasoned counter-argu

I am sorry that you did that. I believe that Bitcoin's intrinsic energy usage is a big big problem, and I would have been interested in a reasoned counter-argument from someone who is in favour of Bitcoin or other crypto-currencies. After all, I read HN mostly to learn and grow. I especially enjoy informative comments on articles and the ensuing debates.

artifact_44 6y ago
Ok. Let's ban capitalism.
fisf 6y ago
The easiest counter argument to that is that transition to proof-of-stake based Crypto should be encouraged. But the article only makes sweeping statements without much depth. . "Cryptocurrencies disproportionately victimize vulnerable people and those in marginalized communities without access to traditional investments or financial advisory" The same could be said about large segments of the traditional finance and banking industry. Yet nobody wants a blanket ban of this sector. It is a very low effort article, that has a very clear bias.
_trampeltier 6y ago
Of course energy is a problem. But at the same time you would to have to ban all sport cars, forbid to heat a building more than 20C etc. And not all people live in a "safe" country and it's still more easy to transmit cryptos to some countrys than use the incompatible way from offical banc transaction.
mantenpanther 6y ago
Bitcoins energy usage might be it‘s most important property as an asset. Blatanly discrediting it because of „energy usage“ is the simple route. I prefer to dig deeper for the truth. Maybe PoS is part of the solution, but I‘m not convinced of a purely virtual system without a physical anchor. An overview of counter-argumebtd to the main bitcoin criticisms: https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/ https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/ Regarding energy usage some arguments are: using stranded energy (exists very much), stabilizing energy nets (especially with renewables), incentivizing renewable research.

artifact_44 6y ago

Ok. Let's ban capitalism.

fisf 6y ago

The easiest counter argument to that is that transition to proof-of-stake based Crypto should be encouraged. But the article only makes sweeping statements without much depth. . "Cryptocurrencies disproportionately victimize vulnerable people and those in marginalized communities without access to traditional investments or financial advisory" The same could be said about large segments of the traditional finance and banking industry. Yet nobody wants a blanket ban of this sector. It is a very low effort article, that has a very clear bias.

_trampeltier 6y ago

Of course energy is a problem. But at the same time you would to have to ban all sport cars, forbid to heat a building more than 20C etc. And not all people live in a "safe" country and it's still more easy to transmit cryptos to some countrys than use the incompatible way from offical banc transaction.

mantenpanther 6y ago

Bitcoins energy usage might be it‘s most important property as an asset. Blatanly discrediting it because of „energy usage“ is the simple route. I prefer to dig deeper for the truth. Maybe PoS is part of the solution, but I‘m not convinced of a purely virtual system without a physical anchor. An overview of counter-argumebtd to the main bitcoin criticisms: https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/ https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/ Regarding energy usage some arguments are: using stranded energy (exists very much), stabilizing energy nets (especially with renewables), incentivizing renewable research.