4 ms·
"They are bad for the environment, as they rely on cryptocurrencies that cause huge amounts of carbon emissions. They will continue to rely on these systems for
by sschueller 5y ago
"They are bad for the environment, as they rely on cryptocurrencies that cause huge amounts of carbon emissions. They will continue to rely on these systems for security reasons (despite claims to the contrary about moving to other systems)."
Moot point. Some are already proof of Stake and ethereum will be switched to PoS.
Might as well say storing your photos on the internet is bad for the environment and doesn't provide any benefits.
There a plenty of reasons why NFTs can be bad but this ain't one that applies across the board.
- exclipy 5y agoThe author discusses PoS in the long version: https://antsstyle.medium.com/why-nfts-are-bad-the-long-version-2c16dae145e2 https://antsstyle.medium.com/why-nfts-are-bad-the-long-versi...
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y agoThe environmental argument is a red herring. PoS is worthless, and I don't believe Eth will actually transition anytime soon. Anyone bringing up the energy argument lacks any other good arguments.
- williamtrask 5y agoStoring photos on the internet probably vides no benefits?
- syysilma 5y agohow long has it been that Ethereum switching to proof-of-stake is right around the corner?
- duskwuff 5y agoPoS has been coming "real soon now" since at least 2019.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoThank you. I've been trying to convince people that coal power isn't bad because solar exists and is gaining production share. As long as alternatives exist, coal does nothing to the environment.
- jtsiskin 5y agoThey are not saying coal isn’t bad. They are saying electricity isn’t bad. You can choose to use solar power already today. And soon by default everyone will be on solar power. Coal is still bad.
- upwardbound 5y agoCan you elaborate? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. What do you mean by "As long as alternatives exist, coal does nothing to the environment."?
- kelseyfrog 5y agoIt is very difficult to convey sarcasm through text. If you thought my previous comment was devoid of all reason and thought, may I direct you to its parent?
- petmon 5y agoPlease edit said comment to add a /s or similar, its intent wasn't apparent to me either.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 5y ago> What do you mean by "As long as alternatives exist, coal does nothing to the environment."? Read that sentence like "As long as proof of stake exists, proof of work is a 'moot point' toward the environment." They're making an analogy to the OP comment to argue that it's a bad excuse.
- egypturnash 5y agoI am pretty sure that Etherium switching to PoS will happen in the Year of Linux on the Desktop.
- xondono 5y agoThe author covers your own response in the article.. PoS is a nice concept but we don’t leave in that world yet. The author mentions that Etherium has been talking about switching to PoS but haven’t yet. Anyone who has thought about it for more than 5 seconds has seen the issues with the switch. Most miners have the majority of their “holdings” not in Etherium but in compute power, because they sell Eth to cover the operating costs, expand computing power, and secure profits (and reduce volatility). This means switching to PoS will probably cause a massive fork, with the biggest miners staying in the “old” branch (it’s the one they’ll dominate). This leaves the new branch with little compute power and less holders, which makes it very vulnerable, especially since all large holders would rather prefer the new where they’ll get rewards.
- terrortrain 5y agoLots of people are staking already, so validators are running. The system shouldn't be vulnerable when the fork goes live. What will really determine the successful chain, is where the stable coins go.