4 ms·

> Bitcoin simply exists in a form where the primary purpose is to waste energy, That's just your moral judgement. The people who use and make a living off of

by jude- 6y ago

> Bitcoin simply exists in a form where the primary purpose is to waste energy, That's just your moral judgement. The people who use and make a living off of Bitcoin certainly don't see it as a waste. > In order for the network to remain secure, it must burn copious amounts of energy. First, this does not preclude PoW from existing in a world powered 100% renewable energy. Second, I've already outlined a way to economically penalize PoW miners for using fossil fuels here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829269. Please do not make the mistake of believing that your (rightful) concerns about CO2 emissions from PoW are being overlooked, and please do not make the mistake of thinking that they cannot be addressed. PoW does not require burning fossil fuels to work.

SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
Look, I'll just say right here I do believe your heart is in the right place and you want there to be an alternative to the government run and controlled fiat. That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as a proper hedge. Also, to your point about greenifying Bitcoin, I just believe the assumption that bitcoin will just move over 100% to green energy sources is naive at best, and considering that is energy that isn't being used for activities I would argue as more productive (like powering homes, schools, electric cars), I just feel that it's a real opportunity loss. I just think it's not as likely to happen. Maybe if nuclear power really starts to take off again, there might be hope, as the sheer amount of Gigawatts that such plants can produce could easily outpace other green energy technologies. Sadly we have some anti-nuclear sentiment that blocks progress in building new plants quickly.
- wolfretcrap 6y ago
  >That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as a proper hedge. Moving gold from one country to another country on your is difficult. Storing gold properly without getting robbed is difficult. Try moving $5million dollar worth gold and you'll realize the advantage which bitcoin brings.
  - klibertp 6y ago
    > Try moving $5million dollar worth gold If I read the price correctly that would be something like 80kg. I can't be bothered to dig deeper, but that would be just a few gold bars, I suspect. Not very hard to handle, IMO...
    - fsflover 6y ago
      Except you will be robbed in a second.
- jude- 6y ago
  > you want there to be an alternative to the government run and controlled fiat. I, uh, never said that. I don't see Bitcoin as a currency at all. > That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as a proper hedge. No thank you. Gold-mining is way more ecologically disastrous. If Bitcoin replaces gold, the environment will be better off for it -- at least you can mine Bitcoin with nothing more than solar panels and wind farms. > I just believe the assumption that bitcoin will just move over 100% to green energy sources is naive at best One way or another, the world is going to need to move all its energy production to 100% renewables, or humanity is going to be in for a world of hurt. But, this is true with or without cryptocurrencies.
  - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
    >I, uh, never said that. I don't see Bitcoin as a currency at all. I stand corrected. >No thank you. Gold-mining is way more ecologically disastrous. If Bitcoin replaces gold, the environment will be better off for it -- at least you can mine Bitcoin with nothing more than solar panels and wind farms. Well there's just one problem. You need gold as a component in the creation of systems that mine bitcoin. Oops! So we are kinda stuck with gold mining, which we need to do, just so bitcoin can be mined, which we don't have to do. With that in mind, why not just skip to just straight up owning gold? >One way or another, the world is going to need to move all its energy production to 100% renewables, or humanity is going to be in for a world of hurt. But, this is true with or without cryptocurrencies. On this point, I hope you are right. We do need to get off of coal and gas as soon as we can.

by jude- 6y ago

SwimSwimHungry 6y ago

Look, I'll just say right here I do believe your heart is in the right place and you want there to be an alternative to the government run and controlled fiat. That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as a proper hedge. Also, to your point about greenifying Bitcoin, I just believe the assumption that bitcoin will just move over 100% to green energy sources is naive at best, and considering that is energy that isn't being used for activities I would argue as more productive (like powering homes, schools, electric cars), I just feel that it's a real opportunity loss. I just think it's not as likely to happen. Maybe if nuclear power really starts to take off again, there might be hope, as the sheer amount of Gigawatts that such plants can produce could easily outpace other green energy technologies. Sadly we have some anti-nuclear sentiment that blocks progress in building new plants quickly.

wolfretcrap 6y ago
>That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as a proper hedge. Moving gold from one country to another country on your is difficult. Storing gold properly without getting robbed is difficult. Try moving $5million dollar worth gold and you'll realize the advantage which bitcoin brings.
- klibertp 6y ago
  > Try moving $5million dollar worth gold If I read the price correctly that would be something like 80kg. I can't be bothered to dig deeper, but that would be just a few gold bars, I suspect. Not very hard to handle, IMO...
  - fsflover 6y ago
    Except you will be robbed in a second.
jude- 6y ago
> you want there to be an alternative to the government run and controlled fiat. I, uh, never said that. I don't see Bitcoin as a currency at all. > That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as a proper hedge. No thank you. Gold-mining is way more ecologically disastrous. If Bitcoin replaces gold, the environment will be better off for it -- at least you can mine Bitcoin with nothing more than solar panels and wind farms. > I just believe the assumption that bitcoin will just move over 100% to green energy sources is naive at best One way or another, the world is going to need to move all its energy production to 100% renewables, or humanity is going to be in for a world of hurt. But, this is true with or without cryptocurrencies.
- SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
  >I, uh, never said that. I don't see Bitcoin as a currency at all. I stand corrected. >No thank you. Gold-mining is way more ecologically disastrous. If Bitcoin replaces gold, the environment will be better off for it -- at least you can mine Bitcoin with nothing more than solar panels and wind farms. Well there's just one problem. You need gold as a component in the creation of systems that mine bitcoin. Oops! So we are kinda stuck with gold mining, which we need to do, just so bitcoin can be mined, which we don't have to do. With that in mind, why not just skip to just straight up owning gold? >One way or another, the world is going to need to move all its energy production to 100% renewables, or humanity is going to be in for a world of hurt. But, this is true with or without cryptocurrencies. On this point, I hope you are right. We do need to get off of coal and gas as soon as we can.