4 ms·
> and the political structure that keeps it in use? 1. False equivalence, since the environmental concern is about the generation of cryptocurrency not its soc
by einpoklum 6y ago
> and the political structure that keeps it in use?
1. False equivalence, since the environmental concern is about the generation of cryptocurrency not its social implications vs a crypto-currency-free world.
2. You've expanded this question so much that it is not possible to answer. The political structure that keeps money is use is basically the political structure of almost all world states, and capitalist/money-based economies. So the cost is about 100% of all energy expenditure. What's the alternative? You would need to imagine an anti-capitalist revolution creating a non-exchange-based economy (so not USSR-style either). I happen to think that's a swell idea, but you realize there is absolutely no way you can estimate how much less energy humanity would use up in such a different reality than today's.
- tome 6y ago> > and the political structure that keeps it in use? > 1. False equivalence It's additionally a false equivalence because those political structures also keep in place the things you want to buy with bitcoin, such as shops, factories, and things you produce bitcoin with, such as power stations and computers.
- MrMan 6y agoAnd indeed all those structures provide the support system for crypto itself. It is not outside the existing system. The rhetoric makes it seem like an independent and autonomous system but it is part of the existing technical and financial system. It will not replace the rest of the system, evidenced by recent cooptation by Visa and PayPal, the creation of exchanges, taxation and KYC rules. The real world exists and crypto is not an escape.
- keiferski 6y agoI meant more the actual nuts-and-bolts of fiat currency, not the entire political structure of capitalism. Obviously this is an unanswerable question, but ultimately the point is that the current currency system no doubt consumes a huge amount of energy. If the predominant currency of the world were a Proof of Stake crypto, it seems logical to assume that actual energy costs would go way down.
- einpoklum 6y ago> but ultimately the point is that the current currency system no doubt consumes a huge amount of energy But is it really huge? I mean, compared to BitCoin mining? Or, if you like - compared to, say, the energy consumed by people's personal computers and mobile phones? I'm not so sure. I mean, I would guess it's not all that much, but it's pure speculation on my part.