"Handshake leverages a blockchain based on unspent transaction output (UTXO) and proof-of-work (PoW) similar to Bitcoin for naming capabilities." This means it

"Handshake leverages a blockchain based on unspent transaction output (UTXO) and proof-of-work (PoW) similar to Bitcoin for naming capabilities." This means it intentionally wastes energy by design, which means its environmental impact is not acceptable, no matter what their FAQ says. Saying that you can mine proof-of-work tokens with green energy is a red herring, since: - Some miners are clearly re-establishing previously closed fossil fuel power plants to meet their energy needs: https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/10/17/bitcoin-miners-resurrecting-mothballed-powerplants-in-crypto-quest/ https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/10/17/bitcoin-miners-resur... We can argue about the frequency of this, but it is undeniably happening. - It will be hard to establish the true amount of fossil fuels used, since miners steal power when they can: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/28/police-find-bitcoin-mine-using-stolen-electricity-west-midlands https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/28/police-fi... See also the attacks on CI platforms to steal CPU cycles: https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/26/Cryptocurrency-is-a-disaster.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/26/Cryptocurrency-is-a-disas... - Installing green energy itself causes emissions: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/04/how-sustainable-is-pv-solar-power.html https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/04/how-sustainable-is... That means there's a hard limit to how much green energy you can install without causing catastrophic warming. Well before that hard limit, you reach a point where the additional emissions created by installing green energy sources are more than they can pay off before deadlines like 2030 or 2050, which means they are serving as carbon sources rather than carbon sinks in the relevant timeframe. In other words, they are accelerating the climate crisis rather than slowing it down. - Total energy use may matter more than the percentage of renewable energy, since if the absolute amount of fossil fuels increases the emissions from burning fossil fuels will increase: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/11/renewable-energy-is-not-enough.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/11/renewable-energy-is-... - The internet as currently designed may use too much energy, so switching to a system that uses even more energy by design is probably a bad idea: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/10/can-the-internet-run-on-renewable-energy.html https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/10/can-the-internet-r... Yes I am obsessed with Low-Tech Magazine, but they have lots of citations and I could easily find less nerdy sources.