4 ms·
It feels disingenuous to start with this: > Whenever the topic of Bitcoin's energy usage comes up, there's always a flood of hastily-constructed comments by pe
by chrisfosterelli 5y ago
It feels disingenuous to start with this:
> Whenever the topic of Bitcoin's energy usage comes up, there's always a flood of hastily-constructed comments by people claiming that their favourite cryptocurrency isn't like Bitcoin, that their favourite cryptocurrency is energy-efficient and scalable and whatnot.
> They're wrong, and are quite possibly trying to scam you. Let's look at why.
And then, 20 paragraphs later, agree they are indeed not wrong:
> The only redeeming feature of proof-of-stake (and many other proof schemes) over proof-of-work is that it does indeed address the energy consumption problem
I think the author has a reasonable point about the centralization problem, but I'm not sure why they spend such a large amount of time discussing the energy usage just to eventually agree with the people they're criticizing.
I don't know that the average person cares about the centralization problem, especially if they don't use the currency, like they do about the energy usage problem. This seems like an odd attempt to connect the two.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago> I'm not sure why they spend such a large amount of time discussing the energy usage just to eventually agree with the people they're criticizing It's an incoherent argument designed to provoke an emotional response. Cryptocurrency must represent what, 0.5% of global energy usage? It's literally nothing. Yet we have all these people using their computers manufactured in China to write about how cryptocurrency is destroying the planet.
- chrisfosterelli 5y agoI agree -- I think it's trying to provoke an emotional response. For the sake of discussion, though, I do actually think the energy usage is an important problem. There's a lot of things I don't "get", but ultimately most of them don't harm anyone and have nothing to do with me. I recognize many people who see benefit in cryptocurrencies might feel the energy usage is small overall compared to the potential in the technology. For the people that don't "get" cryptocurrencies, the energy usage takes it from "has nothing to do with me" to "it's harming the planet". I think it's important to resolve this issue because it will otherwise harm adoption. Additionally, proof of stake seems viable. In a world with accelerating climate change, it seems to me increasing energy efficiency should be a moral imperative. Why do something inefficiently when more efficient means exist?
- matheusmoreira 5y agoEnergy usage is a distraction. It doesn't matter how much energy it uses. That energy is buying us something: decentralized currency technology. If people want to argue about energy, it's more productive to consider which projects deserve the most resources. The fact so much energy is being wasted on bitcoin is sad. As a currency, bitcoin is of very little value, certainly not enough to justify the massive amount of energy being consumed. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if Monero miners consumed even more energy than bitcoin does today. > In a world with accelerating climate change, it seems to me increasing energy efficiency should be a moral imperative. The real moral imperative is to dismantle big oil and stop trading with China. But how will the western world survive without its cars and cheap chinese products?
- mikl 5y agoWhen talking about the world, one of 8 billion people, 0.5% is a massive figure.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoIt's nothing in the grand scheme of things. China alone wastes much more energy than that every year making cheap products.