3 ms·

One could argue that's worse

• arcticbull 5y ago
  One could argue that's better, too - for instance in support of AML, KYC and the ability to reverse erroneous transactions - but the point I was making is that they aren't basically the same thing in this case.
• progbits 5y ago
  You get a "worthless" digital asset either way but one of those doesn't burn a shit-ton of coal. So yes, you could argue the blockchain one is worse.
  • practice9 5y ago
    Digital asset should not be worthless if somebody put some work into creating it. By your definition YouTube videos are worthless, but companies, individuals and Google burn a lot of gas to transport staff and tech, and a lot of electric energy to record videos, convert them into several formats and host them to billions of people.
    • arcticbull 5y ago
      The asset isn't the image, it's the certificate of authenticity. > [edit] By your definition YouTube videos are worthless, but companies, individuals and Google burn a lot of gas to transport staff and tech, and a lot of electric energy to record videos, convert them into several formats and host them to billions of people. Literally nowhere close to the amount of energy expended by blockchains, and they achieve far, far more. The mental gymnastics to justify the sheer global scale of the waste continues, I see. Also, this is just straight up whataboutism.
      • practice9 5y ago
        Based on what I found about Youtube energy consumption, it's somewhere in the 6.38 - 100 TWh range [1] . If most blockchains (perhaps excluding Bitcoin) moved to Proof Of Stake and cut their energy expedinture to cumulatively use less than 200000 MWh per year, would you consider using them? AFAIK, Visa uses up to 205555 MWh per year. [1](https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-str...)