1. People are more likely to recognize they're wrong if you don't also call them crazy. 2. Uh, okay. 3. You've significantly adjusted your statement from "it

1. People are more likely to recognize they're wrong if you don't also call them crazy. 2. Uh, okay. 3. You've significantly adjusted your statement from "it adds the necessity to cause unnecessary environmental pollution", which remains incorrect. > (please provide proof for your statement regarding just "how much" mining is renewable-based) I don't need to provide proof for things I didn't say. Keep in mind that proof of stake as a trustless consensus mechanism is largely hypothetical at this point. All the major "live" implementations (Polkadot, Cardano, Tezos) have large numbers of trusted validators. We agree that carbon emissions and other pollution are a problem. What we don't agree on is the solution to that problem. > [R]enewable energy is removed from the market and thus can't be used to power other consumers, which then must use fossil-fuel based energy sources. It's not like there's not enough demand for energy in the world, especially of the renewable kind. Wrong. The energy that's cheap enough to make mining profitable is cheap because nobody else wants it. In extreme cases, electricity produced in ghost cities in China will literally be dumped into the ground if it's not used by miners. It takes very little competition from consumers to make mining unprofitable.