3 ms·

I honestly can't follow what you're asking for here. I literally don't understand what it is you think I said, or what you're asking me to support or provide ev

I honestly can't follow what you're asking for here. I literally don't understand what it is you think I said, or what you're asking me to support or provide evidence for.

rvz 5y ago
This is you from [0]: > ...we can all agree that cryptocurrency has an external appearance of being environmentally bad. From: [1] Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Maybe I assumed you read this guideline, but clearly it seems that you did not read it, given that your own assumption lacks substance. Which is why I ask again: Do you have evidence to your own assumption that cryptocurrencies have the perception or appearance of being bad for the environment? On top of that, where is the evidence that support the case that ALL cryptocurrencies are bad for the environment? The fact that you are actively dodging these questions leads me to think that you have no evidence in general to support your entire sentence in [0] given that it has ZERO sources which means it is absolutely baseless. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bee_rider 5y ago
  I think your request for sources is quite unreasonable -- clearly the original comment was based on general informal observations and the fact that the environmental impact frequently shows up in news articles. However, I did find a paper you can look up: An Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA), (Yizhi Wang, Brian M. Lucey, Samuel Vigne, Larisa Yarovaya). It is pretty dense, but here's the first paragraph of their conclusion: "We have developed a new measure of attention to sustainability concerns of cryptocurrency markets’ growth. An Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA) has been constructed using 778.2 million news stories from the Lexis Nexis database. The index demonstrates significant increases in attention to cryptocurrency environmental impacts displayed via both traditional and social media channels from 2014 to 2021. Our findings suggest that the public is growing more concerned with energy consumption of these innovative asset."
  - rvz 5y ago
    > I think your request for sources is quite unreasonable So the HN guidelines [0] for keeping the discussion substantive is somewhat 'unreasonable' when talking about something controversial like cryptocurrencies which even the commenter knew their long reply was unfounded? [1] I am simply keeping the discussion substantiative. As for the source you provided, it's now substantiates the observation claim I am asking for. It answers the first request for evidence but not the second one and this paper primarily focuses on only two PoW cryptocurrencies but doesn't target 'all' of the others in general which would which make case if every single cryptocurrency have the same energy inefficiencies as the two cryptocurrencies mentioned in the article, which is what I am also looking for. One commenter gave an alternative cryptocurrency [2] that wasn't mentioned in the paper which aims to be energy efficient and addresses the other commenter's response even when they failed to answer my question by replying with another question. [3]. Given that one mention of the existence of an energy efficient cryptocurrency, what evidence exists that 'all of them' are harmful to the environment? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284 [2] https://assets.website-files.com/5d80307810123f5ffbb34d6e/6008d7bbf8b10d1eb01e7e16_Avalanche%20Platform%20Whitepaper.pdf https://assets.website-files.com/5d80307810123f5ffbb34d6e/60... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065963
    - bee_rider 5y ago
      As has repeatedly been pointed out, the claim is based on the perception of environmental unfriendliness, so this tangent about the hypothetical existence of a non-harmful one is irrelevant. The paper described the terms they performed analysis on: ("cryptocurrency" or "bitcoin" or "ethereum") and atl1("energy" or “energy consumption” or “energy footprint” or “climate change” or “carbon footprint” or "environment" or "environmental" or “environmental impact” or “carbon footprint” ) So, while they didn't list every niche cryptocurrency, they did include the catch-all phrase. This should capture some of the sentiment about those niche cryptocurrencies (to the extent that people care about them).
bee_rider 5y ago
I think you are disingenuously being asked to provide a source for an observation that you made informally (that cryptocurrency's environmental impact is becoming a well known problem). However, out of annoyance I went and found a source that you can use if you'd like. An Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA), (Yizhi Wang, Brian M. Lucey, Samuel Vigne, Larisa Yarovaya) It has the benefit of being fairly technical, so I guess the sort of person who make an 'argument' by lazily and pedantically demanding sources for common sense statements won't actually want to put in the work of reading it.
- rvz 5y ago
  > I think you are disingenuously being asked to provide a source for an observation that you made informally So one thinks it is safe to blanket label 'cryptocurrencies' meaning 'all of them' being harmful to the environment due to a basic and very lazy 'observation'. Unfortunately that was left unsubstantiated. > However, out of annoyance I went and found a source that you can use if you'd like. I see. So it is 'annoying' to substantiate your own comments? I don't want to repeat the same line that mentions this in the HN guidelines and it doesn't matter if it is informal or not. My only request was for a source to this. The commenter knew that the burden of proof was on them to substantiate their assumption and they knew could not provide one or answer the other question. I accept the source given here which answers the 'observation' claim, it doesn't however, answer if it is the case for every single cryptocurrency since the paper focuses on only two specific ones instead of the rest of them.

I honestly can't follow what you're asking for here. I literally don't understand what it is you think I said, or what you're asking me to support or provide evidence for.

rvz 5y ago

This is you from [0]: > ...we can all agree that cryptocurrency has an external appearance of being environmentally bad. From: [1] Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Maybe I assumed you read this guideline, but clearly it seems that you did not read it, given that your own assumption lacks substance. Which is why I ask again: Do you have evidence to your own assumption that cryptocurrencies have the perception or appearance of being bad for the environment? On top of that, where is the evidence that support the case that ALL cryptocurrencies are bad for the environment? The fact that you are actively dodging these questions leads me to think that you have no evidence in general to support your entire sentence in [0] given that it has ZERO sources which means it is absolutely baseless. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bee_rider 5y ago
I think your request for sources is quite unreasonable -- clearly the original comment was based on general informal observations and the fact that the environmental impact frequently shows up in news articles. However, I did find a paper you can look up: An Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA), (Yizhi Wang, Brian M. Lucey, Samuel Vigne, Larisa Yarovaya). It is pretty dense, but here's the first paragraph of their conclusion: "We have developed a new measure of attention to sustainability concerns of cryptocurrency markets’ growth. An Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA) has been constructed using 778.2 million news stories from the Lexis Nexis database. The index demonstrates significant increases in attention to cryptocurrency environmental impacts displayed via both traditional and social media channels from 2014 to 2021. Our findings suggest that the public is growing more concerned with energy consumption of these innovative asset."
- rvz 5y ago
  > I think your request for sources is quite unreasonable So the HN guidelines [0] for keeping the discussion substantive is somewhat 'unreasonable' when talking about something controversial like cryptocurrencies which even the commenter knew their long reply was unfounded? [1] I am simply keeping the discussion substantiative. As for the source you provided, it's now substantiates the observation claim I am asking for. It answers the first request for evidence but not the second one and this paper primarily focuses on only two PoW cryptocurrencies but doesn't target 'all' of the others in general which would which make case if every single cryptocurrency have the same energy inefficiencies as the two cryptocurrencies mentioned in the article, which is what I am also looking for. One commenter gave an alternative cryptocurrency [2] that wasn't mentioned in the paper which aims to be energy efficient and addresses the other commenter's response even when they failed to answer my question by replying with another question. [3]. Given that one mention of the existence of an energy efficient cryptocurrency, what evidence exists that 'all of them' are harmful to the environment? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284 [2] https://assets.website-files.com/5d80307810123f5ffbb34d6e/6008d7bbf8b10d1eb01e7e16_Avalanche%20Platform%20Whitepaper.pdf https://assets.website-files.com/5d80307810123f5ffbb34d6e/60... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065963
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    As has repeatedly been pointed out, the claim is based on the perception of environmental unfriendliness, so this tangent about the hypothetical existence of a non-harmful one is irrelevant. The paper described the terms they performed analysis on: ("cryptocurrency" or "bitcoin" or "ethereum") and atl1("energy" or “energy consumption” or “energy footprint” or “climate change” or “carbon footprint” or "environment" or "environmental" or “environmental impact” or “carbon footprint” ) So, while they didn't list every niche cryptocurrency, they did include the catch-all phrase. This should capture some of the sentiment about those niche cryptocurrencies (to the extent that people care about them).

bee_rider 5y ago

I think you are disingenuously being asked to provide a source for an observation that you made informally (that cryptocurrency's environmental impact is becoming a well known problem). However, out of annoyance I went and found a source that you can use if you'd like. An Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA), (Yizhi Wang, Brian M. Lucey, Samuel Vigne, Larisa Yarovaya) It has the benefit of being fairly technical, so I guess the sort of person who make an 'argument' by lazily and pedantically demanding sources for common sense statements won't actually want to put in the work of reading it.

rvz 5y ago
> I think you are disingenuously being asked to provide a source for an observation that you made informally So one thinks it is safe to blanket label 'cryptocurrencies' meaning 'all of them' being harmful to the environment due to a basic and very lazy 'observation'. Unfortunately that was left unsubstantiated. > However, out of annoyance I went and found a source that you can use if you'd like. I see. So it is 'annoying' to substantiate your own comments? I don't want to repeat the same line that mentions this in the HN guidelines and it doesn't matter if it is informal or not. My only request was for a source to this. The commenter knew that the burden of proof was on them to substantiate their assumption and they knew could not provide one or answer the other question. I accept the source given here which answers the 'observation' claim, it doesn't however, answer if it is the case for every single cryptocurrency since the paper focuses on only two specific ones instead of the rest of them.