4 ms·

Then let’s ban this waste of electricity everywhere. I’m all for the idea of crypto currency, but I’m not in support or baking the planet just so a few people

Then let’s ban this waste of electricity everywhere. I’m all for the idea of crypto currency, but I’m not in support or baking the planet just so a few people can get some virtual goods.

DeusExMachina 5y ago
How you define waste of electricity? You writing that comment might as well be declared a waste and prohibited.
- Jensson 5y ago
  People decide that democratically. This is just like how California bans all showerheads that gives you more than a trickle of water, since they see good showers as a waste of water (All of USA has a similar ban but less restrictive). Just that in Sweden they ban wasteful businesses rather than "wasteful" quality of life improvements.
  - VMG 5y ago
    And like many other "democratic" decisions, it's just a feel-good measure. Watering your lawn is apparently a worthwhile use of resources, according to the Demos.
  - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
    California bans the sale, not the use. Discrimination of how we use power is like discrimination of how we use internet service. What happened to power network neutrality?
    - Jensson 5y ago
      Well every time I visit California the showers are horrible in the hotels, so I bet hotels has to have those shitty showerheads. It would work the same here, you ban crypto mining for businesses but people will still mine privately since you can't really ban that.
- labster 5y ago
  This shitty comment uses a kilojoule max. A single BTC transaction uses 1880 kWh. https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
  - foepys 5y ago
    A Bitcoin transaction doesn't consume much energy, only the block generation does. An empty Bitcoin block still consumes the same amount of energy. Which in the end makes it even worse.
  - VMG 5y ago
    this calculation ignores layer-2 transactions which are just a few TCP packets
- wruza 5y ago
  Like any other waste, when it does more bad than good.
VMG 5y ago
Isn't it interesting that it is never a "waste" if it is the Pentagon that is polluting and poisoning the world. But if there is a technology that threatens government power, suddenly it's suddenly all about the Earth. For many people, Bitcoin is the only reliable technology to prevent their savings to be destroyed by inflation and to evade cruel sanctions. Your opinion has no value to them.
- sk0g 5y ago
  The first point is classic whataboutism. Would you defend a murder court case by claiming people don't care when the police kill people? It's the same thing, but people being replaced by the planet. Second point - who are these people, and how much of BTC usage comes from that, vs greedy 'investors'/'evangelists' who have bought in, and get rich by other people buying in? It's a rich people's plaything. Poor people in third world countries own very little of it, because they are poor. Bitcoin, and crypto as a whole, is a solution in search of a problem. It can be hammered into lots of use cases, but most are solved more quickly and efficiently by a backend and a database.
  - VMG 5y ago
    Bitcoin is targeted because it is a threat to power, not because of any environmental concerns. The people who use it do not have to justify it for you or anyone else. That's what makes it successful.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      Sweden wouldn't be the first western country to ban crypto mining if it was just about power. Sweden has a lot of environmentalists in its government though, so it makes sense that Sweden is the first western country to ban it for environmental reasons. If you think a government wouldn't ban crypto for environmental reasons, can you believe a country would ban drinking straws for environmental reasons? Yeah, that happened, banning crypto is much more reasonable than banning drinking straws.
    - devoutsalsa 5y ago
casi18 5y ago
we should ban videogames, they use more energy than ethereum network (u.s. video game industry uses more energy than small countries!!) and the virtual goods are locked inside one game and cant even be exchanged or resold after use. not a fan of using energy for some peoples private flights of fancy. we should prioritise actual infrastructure with social value.
- sk0g 5y ago
  Yet more whataboutism. People need entertainment, but an investment medium that is designed to use as much power as possible is not remotely comparable to the basic needs of humans.

Then let’s ban this waste of electricity everywhere. I’m all for the idea of crypto currency, but I’m not in support or baking the planet just so a few people can get some virtual goods.

DeusExMachina 5y ago

How you define waste of electricity? You writing that comment might as well be declared a waste and prohibited.

Jensson 5y ago
People decide that democratically. This is just like how California bans all showerheads that gives you more than a trickle of water, since they see good showers as a waste of water (All of USA has a similar ban but less restrictive). Just that in Sweden they ban wasteful businesses rather than "wasteful" quality of life improvements.
- VMG 5y ago
  And like many other "democratic" decisions, it's just a feel-good measure. Watering your lawn is apparently a worthwhile use of resources, according to the Demos.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  California bans the sale, not the use. Discrimination of how we use power is like discrimination of how we use internet service. What happened to power network neutrality?
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Well every time I visit California the showers are horrible in the hotels, so I bet hotels has to have those shitty showerheads. It would work the same here, you ban crypto mining for businesses but people will still mine privately since you can't really ban that.
labster 5y ago
This shitty comment uses a kilojoule max. A single BTC transaction uses 1880 kWh. https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
- foepys 5y ago
  A Bitcoin transaction doesn't consume much energy, only the block generation does. An empty Bitcoin block still consumes the same amount of energy. Which in the end makes it even worse.
- VMG 5y ago
  this calculation ignores layer-2 transactions which are just a few TCP packets
wruza 5y ago
Like any other waste, when it does more bad than good.

VMG 5y ago

Isn't it interesting that it is never a "waste" if it is the Pentagon that is polluting and poisoning the world. But if there is a technology that threatens government power, suddenly it's suddenly all about the Earth. For many people, Bitcoin is the only reliable technology to prevent their savings to be destroyed by inflation and to evade cruel sanctions. Your opinion has no value to them.

sk0g 5y ago
The first point is classic whataboutism. Would you defend a murder court case by claiming people don't care when the police kill people? It's the same thing, but people being replaced by the planet. Second point - who are these people, and how much of BTC usage comes from that, vs greedy 'investors'/'evangelists' who have bought in, and get rich by other people buying in? It's a rich people's plaything. Poor people in third world countries own very little of it, because they are poor. Bitcoin, and crypto as a whole, is a solution in search of a problem. It can be hammered into lots of use cases, but most are solved more quickly and efficiently by a backend and a database.
- VMG 5y ago
  Bitcoin is targeted because it is a threat to power, not because of any environmental concerns. The people who use it do not have to justify it for you or anyone else. That's what makes it successful.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Sweden wouldn't be the first western country to ban crypto mining if it was just about power. Sweden has a lot of environmentalists in its government though, so it makes sense that Sweden is the first western country to ban it for environmental reasons. If you think a government wouldn't ban crypto for environmental reasons, can you believe a country would ban drinking straws for environmental reasons? Yeah, that happened, banning crypto is much more reasonable than banning drinking straws.
  - devoutsalsa 5y ago

casi18 5y ago

we should ban videogames, they use more energy than ethereum network (u.s. video game industry uses more energy than small countries!!) and the virtual goods are locked inside one game and cant even be exchanged or resold after use. not a fan of using energy for some peoples private flights of fancy. we should prioritise actual infrastructure with social value.

sk0g 5y ago
Yet more whataboutism. People need entertainment, but an investment medium that is designed to use as much power as possible is not remotely comparable to the basic needs of humans.