3 ms·

>>Certainly anyone who seriously argues "but you forgot to account for the energy cost of nuclear carriers in propping up fiat currency" I honestly don't think

>>Certainly anyone who seriously argues "but you forgot to account for the energy cost of nuclear carriers in propping up fiat currency" I honestly don't think I've seen anything like that here - but once the crypto threads get too long I stop reading cuz all the cranks come out. But even if we stipulate that as true, is it fair to paint the whole crypto community with that brush? I see cranks in everything from cancer treatment to prepping to stock investing. Everyone seems to realize those fringes don't represent the majority views..So why is it when its crypto, the fringes suddenly represent the majority? It's a bit annoying, like we're all out there mortgaging our houses on this stuff...

jcranmer 5y ago
Just one cite I can give recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27179397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27179397 > I find it frustrating that crypto-currencies are judged by their energy usage, meanwhile traditional fiat currencies are secured by massive banking industries, governments, and militaries. The total energy required to maintain a secure and stable fiat currency is likely orders of magnitude greater than that of Bitcoin today. I originally had the quote as a strawman rendition (an exaggeration of the but-you-forgot-to-account-for-X arguments) of the enthusiasts trying to explain away Bitcoin's rapacious energy consumption, and like a week later, I actually saw someone try to specifically cite the energy cost of carriers. Since then, virtually every thread on Bitcoin's energy consumption has had some people come out of the woodwork with that kind of defense, and I don't really have the mood to do the searching to establish just how common those views are.
- mech422 5y ago
  Fair enough... But the other side of the coin is miners trying to reduce the energy consumption and use green sources. Again, everyone just wants to point at a vocal minority and call it good. edit: I should probably point out the trend to move away from PoW to 'Staking' (PoS) solutions that are more energy efficient. The crypto community isn't ignoring energy usage issues.

jcranmer 5y ago

Just one cite I can give recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27179397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27179397 > I find it frustrating that crypto-currencies are judged by their energy usage, meanwhile traditional fiat currencies are secured by massive banking industries, governments, and militaries. The total energy required to maintain a secure and stable fiat currency is likely orders of magnitude greater than that of Bitcoin today. I originally had the quote as a strawman rendition (an exaggeration of the but-you-forgot-to-account-for-X arguments) of the enthusiasts trying to explain away Bitcoin's rapacious energy consumption, and like a week later, I actually saw someone try to specifically cite the energy cost of carriers. Since then, virtually every thread on Bitcoin's energy consumption has had some people come out of the woodwork with that kind of defense, and I don't really have the mood to do the searching to establish just how common those views are.

mech422 5y ago
Fair enough... But the other side of the coin is miners trying to reduce the energy consumption and use green sources. Again, everyone just wants to point at a vocal minority and call it good. edit: I should probably point out the trend to move away from PoW to 'Staking' (PoS) solutions that are more energy efficient. The crypto community isn't ignoring energy usage issues.