3 ms·

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 irresponsib

by 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.
- shawnz 5y ago
  That doesn't explain the rationale why such a thing in particular would be irresponsible and not other technologies.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    Who says other things are all perfectly responsible? I didn't.
    - shawnz 5y ago
      I never claimed you did. I am just saying that you haven't justified why Bitcoin is actually an irresponsible use of energy. What makes its usage level irresponsible? Why is it more irresponsible than other technologies which use more energy than it?
      - Nursie 5y ago
        > What makes its usage level irresponsible? New financial instrument using more power than most countries. Thought you might have got that by now. > Why is it more irresponsible than other technologies which use more energy than it? Nobody is making that argument. This is just whataboutery. But in general, the fact that it's a new financial instrument using more power than most countries, at a time when we have a global climate crisis brought on largely by our energy usage.
        shawnz 5y ago
        > New financial instrument using more power than most countries. Thought you might have got that by now. But you haven't justified why that is an irresponsible use. > Nobody is making that argument. This is just whataboutery. Yes, true, I guess you never claimed that the other ~99.4% of energy usage isn't actually less justified than Bitcoin. Sorry to imply otherwise.
        Nursie 5y ago
        > But you haven't justified why that is an irresponsible use. Because it's just a financial instrument, and it uses more power than the Netherlands, and we have a climate crisis going on. I'm not sure what it is you don't see here. Any new financial instrument that added a whole country to the energy map like that would be a bad thing.
        shawnz 5y ago
        You are implying that's an obvious judgement but the wide ranges of opinions in the daily cryptocurrency threads on here should clearly show you that it is NOT an obvious judgement. Why are financial instruments not important enough to warrant a measly 0.6% of worldwide consumption?

by shawnz 5y ago

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.

shawnz 5y ago
That doesn't explain the rationale why such a thing in particular would be irresponsible and not other technologies.
- Nursie 5y ago
  Who says other things are all perfectly responsible? I didn't.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    I never claimed you did. I am just saying that you haven't justified why Bitcoin is actually an irresponsible use of energy. What makes its usage level irresponsible? Why is it more irresponsible than other technologies which use more energy than it?
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > What makes its usage level irresponsible? New financial instrument using more power than most countries. Thought you might have got that by now. > Why is it more irresponsible than other technologies which use more energy than it? Nobody is making that argument. This is just whataboutery. But in general, the fact that it's a new financial instrument using more power than most countries, at a time when we have a global climate crisis brought on largely by our energy usage.
      - shawnz 5y ago
        > New financial instrument using more power than most countries. Thought you might have got that by now. But you haven't justified why that is an irresponsible use. > Nobody is making that argument. This is just whataboutery. Yes, true, I guess you never claimed that the other ~99.4% of energy usage isn't actually less justified than Bitcoin. Sorry to imply otherwise.
        Nursie 5y ago
        > But you haven't justified why that is an irresponsible use. Because it's just a financial instrument, and it uses more power than the Netherlands, and we have a climate crisis going on. I'm not sure what it is you don't see here. Any new financial instrument that added a whole country to the energy map like that would be a bad thing.
        shawnz 5y ago
        You are implying that's an obvious judgement but the wide ranges of opinions in the daily cryptocurrency threads on here should clearly show you that it is NOT an obvious judgement. Why are financial instruments not important enough to warrant a measly 0.6% of worldwide consumption?