5 ms·

shooting ourselves in the foot with cryptocurrencies might not be worth the environmental impact it undeniably causes. if you want to gamble, go to Las Vegas!

workallday21 5y ago
This environmental impact of crypto is like a virus that spreads and spreads. A meme if you will. The industrial revolution was also bad for the environment. And it's the single most important reason why we are arguing across countries now in home using cheap devices made in China. So, just drop the environmental impact. Geez, makes me want to buy BitCoin just to spite you.
- Nursie 5y ago
  "Other things have caused pollution, therefore you can't criticise my thing" We are in a world where excessive use of fossil energy is a massive problem. At such a time, bringing a new financial instrument into the world that uses more power than mid-sized countries is irresponsible if not downright malicious. Sorry if that annoys you.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    Increasing the energy usage of our species is not "irresponsible" or "malicious". Every technological improvement increases the energy usage of our species. I think that is the point they are making, that it is wrong to say that using energy is strictly a bad thing. If you want to decrease fossil fuel consumption then you should be crusading for worldwide carbon taxes, not bans on new technologies.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > Increasing the energy usage of our species is not "irresponsible" or "malicious". Right now, yes it is. we do not have unlimited clean energy. > Every technological improvement increases the energy usage of our species. This is a huge assertion. > If you want to decrease fossil fuel consumption then you should be crusading for worldwide carbon taxes, not bans on new technologies. Great, and in the mean time, until we get there, spinning up a new financial instrument that uses more power than the Netherlands is massively irresponsible if not outright malicious.
      - shawnz 5y ago
        So, what amount of consumption for new technologies is justified then? Where is the point where a new technology becomes irresponsible?
        Nursie 5y ago
        Where is exactly is the line? I don't know and I'm not convinced that that's an interesting question. I'd say that it's significantly below bringing entire new country's worth of energy consumption online for a financial scheme. Your argument is effectively that we can never call anything an irresponsible use of energy. With the background of global climate change, I very much disagree.
        shawnz 5y ago
        I'm not saying we can never call anything an irresponsible use of energy. What I am saying is that we can't by default call all new technologies an irresponsible use of energy either. The fact that it uses energy is not justification alone that it is bad. We use energy to achieve utility for our species. The only way we could stop all our energy consumption would be to cease to exist. So, why is Bitcoin an irresponsible use and other technologies are a responsible use? THAT is the interesting question. Volume alone can't be enough to justify it because many important technologies use way more energy than Bitcoin at only 0.6% of global use. So it must come down to an opinion that cryptocurrencies aren't useful: that is the real disagreement here. It isn't about energy usage, but usefulness (per unit of energy usage), which is a highly subjective judgement. That is what I am trying to point out.
        Nursie 5y ago
        > The only way we could stop all our energy consumption would be to cease to exist. Who's talking about stopping all energy consumption? > So, why is Bitcoin an irresponsible use and other technologies are a responsible use? New financial instrument brought online during a climate crisis uses more power than most countries == irresponsible/malicious. There, made that simple for you. If you want to argue your opinion that such a thing is worthwhile given the background, that's a pretty steep hill to climb.
  - workallday21 5y ago
    It doesn't annoy me at all. Your attitude annoys me. Who cares how much energy it uses in aggregate. That energy is paid for. If we are under such an energy shortage problem then I assume individual countries will start rationing it out or switching to renewables or whatever. It's such a weird attack angle that seems to have latched on some people's minds like glue. Did we ever look at the aggregate impact of every thing in the world? What is the aggregate impact of Facebook? What is the aggregate impact of gas cars? What is the aggregate impact of lawn mowing world wide? What is the aggregate impact of smoking? Like... of all the things. It's a global system that runs non-stop, world wide. It would be quite remarkable if it didn't use energy.
exo762 5y ago
Re environmental impact: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27194586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27194586
- Nursie 5y ago
  Great, let us know when that actually happens and when Bitcoin gets taken offline. Because AFAICT, the number 2 cryptocurrency going PoS is positive, but doesn't necessarily solve the whole problem, and the actual switch-over might still be years away anyway.
  - exo762 5y ago
    > Great, let us know when that actually happens and when Bitcoin gets taken offline. There is no us.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      I dunno, given that companies like Tesla are stepping back from accepting cryptocurrency due to environmental concerns, I'd say there's a body of people for whom this constitutes a problem.
shawnz 5y ago
Casinos in Las Vegas consume quite a lot of energy
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Do they consume more or less energy than Argentina? * https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952
  - shawnz 5y ago
    Do you mean absolutely, or per unit of utility that the users get from it? The casinos in Las Vegas do consume more than several countries, but also they consume less in an absolute sense than Bitcoin does. However I think we can agree the utility they provide is nothing more than mere entertainment.
- deadfish 5y ago
  And add on the emissions for the flight to get there

workallday21 5y ago

This environmental impact of crypto is like a virus that spreads and spreads. A meme if you will. The industrial revolution was also bad for the environment. And it's the single most important reason why we are arguing across countries now in home using cheap devices made in China. So, just drop the environmental impact. Geez, makes me want to buy BitCoin just to spite you.

Nursie 5y ago
"Other things have caused pollution, therefore you can't criticise my thing" We are in a world where excessive use of fossil energy is a massive problem. At such a time, bringing a new financial instrument into the world that uses more power than mid-sized countries is irresponsible if not downright malicious. Sorry if that annoys you.
- shawnz 5y ago
  Increasing the energy usage of our species is not "irresponsible" or "malicious". Every technological improvement increases the energy usage of our species. I think that is the point they are making, that it is wrong to say that using energy is strictly a bad thing. If you want to decrease fossil fuel consumption then you should be crusading for worldwide carbon taxes, not bans on new technologies.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > Increasing the energy usage of our species is not "irresponsible" or "malicious". Right now, yes it is. we do not have unlimited clean energy. > Every technological improvement increases the energy usage of our species. This is a huge assertion. > If you want to decrease fossil fuel consumption then you should be crusading for worldwide carbon taxes, not bans on new technologies. Great, and in the mean time, until we get there, spinning up a new financial instrument that uses more power than the Netherlands is massively irresponsible if not outright malicious.
    - shawnz 5y ago
      So, what amount of consumption for new technologies is justified then? Where is the point where a new technology becomes irresponsible?
      - Nursie 5y ago
        Where is exactly is the line? I don't know and I'm not convinced that that's an interesting question. I'd say that it's significantly below bringing entire new country's worth of energy consumption online for a financial scheme. Your argument is effectively that we can never call anything an irresponsible use of energy. With the background of global climate change, I very much disagree.
        shawnz 5y ago
        I'm not saying we can never call anything an irresponsible use of energy. What I am saying is that we can't by default call all new technologies an irresponsible use of energy either. The fact that it uses energy is not justification alone that it is bad. We use energy to achieve utility for our species. The only way we could stop all our energy consumption would be to cease to exist. So, why is Bitcoin an irresponsible use and other technologies are a responsible use? THAT is the interesting question. Volume alone can't be enough to justify it because many important technologies use way more energy than Bitcoin at only 0.6% of global use. So it must come down to an opinion that cryptocurrencies aren't useful: that is the real disagreement here. It isn't about energy usage, but usefulness (per unit of energy usage), which is a highly subjective judgement. That is what I am trying to point out.
        Nursie 5y ago
        > The only way we could stop all our energy consumption would be to cease to exist. Who's talking about stopping all energy consumption? > So, why is Bitcoin an irresponsible use and other technologies are a responsible use? New financial instrument brought online during a climate crisis uses more power than most countries == irresponsible/malicious. There, made that simple for you. If you want to argue your opinion that such a thing is worthwhile given the background, that's a pretty steep hill to climb.
- workallday21 5y ago
  It doesn't annoy me at all. Your attitude annoys me. Who cares how much energy it uses in aggregate. That energy is paid for. If we are under such an energy shortage problem then I assume individual countries will start rationing it out or switching to renewables or whatever. It's such a weird attack angle that seems to have latched on some people's minds like glue. Did we ever look at the aggregate impact of every thing in the world? What is the aggregate impact of Facebook? What is the aggregate impact of gas cars? What is the aggregate impact of lawn mowing world wide? What is the aggregate impact of smoking? Like... of all the things. It's a global system that runs non-stop, world wide. It would be quite remarkable if it didn't use energy.

exo762 5y ago

Re environmental impact: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27194586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27194586

Nursie 5y ago
Great, let us know when that actually happens and when Bitcoin gets taken offline. Because AFAICT, the number 2 cryptocurrency going PoS is positive, but doesn't necessarily solve the whole problem, and the actual switch-over might still be years away anyway.
- exo762 5y ago
  > Great, let us know when that actually happens and when Bitcoin gets taken offline. There is no us.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    I dunno, given that companies like Tesla are stepping back from accepting cryptocurrency due to environmental concerns, I'd say there's a body of people for whom this constitutes a problem.

shawnz 5y ago

Casinos in Las Vegas consume quite a lot of energy

throw0101a 5y ago
Do they consume more or less energy than Argentina? * https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952
- shawnz 5y ago
  Do you mean absolutely, or per unit of utility that the users get from it? The casinos in Las Vegas do consume more than several countries, but also they consume less in an absolute sense than Bitcoin does. However I think we can agree the utility they provide is nothing more than mere entertainment.
deadfish 5y ago
And add on the emissions for the flight to get there