4 ms·
To be a bit more fair in the comparison (virtual vs physical), probally could account for shipping from manufacturer, to distributor, and then finally to the en
by mrmuagi 5y ago
To be a bit more fair in the comparison (virtual vs physical), probally could account for shipping from manufacturer, to distributor, and then finally to the end user? It seems like that'd atleast tip the scales a little bit.
- Imnimo 5y agoI think the article is talking about waste in the form of ASICs used for mining that need to be constantly replaced with upgraded versions to remain profitable, so it's already physical vs. physical.
- mrmuagi 5y agoShame on me for not reading the article as I could not access to it (forgot my alumni account) -- only could read the abstract. I misinterpreted this statement: " On average Bitcoin generates 272 g of e-waste per transaction processed on the blockchain." To mean the online cost of the hashing/mining, etc, not just physical e-waste. Regardless this may be moot now, but my feelings was that comparing a consumer product (airpods) to a "bulk consumer" product like ASICs is doing an apple to oranges comparison. Airpods are manufactured in Vietnam and distributed through supply chains throughout the world -- whilst ASICs are manufactured in China and distrubted more locally (in Eurasia)?