6 ms·

> more ecological damage and pollution Source please?

by uncomputation 5y ago

lnxg33k1 5y ago
His bank account
dnautics 5y ago
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Actually, doesn't the US government tax “gains” from Bitcoin “appreciation”?
  - dnautics 5y ago
    fine. Marginally paid for by bitcoin.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
agilob 5y ago
My counter question is: how much energy US banks consume? Every now and then a new article comes out about how BTC is wasting energy, it consumes X amount of energy comparable to <insert small country>. I email or tweet authors of such study/article if they have any estimates on how much energy and materials US bank offices consume: including AC or heating, computers left on over night, lights left over night, TVs playing ads. I asked that more than 5 times and not once got a response. I believe that running traditional banks in US and CA consume more energy than Bitcoin. Sure, bank produce billions times more transaction per day, but BTC will either be replaced by more efficient networks or will evolve into such. US banks used to send letters and cash in coal powered trains. Anyone got source on that?
- tomas 5y ago
  So basically you are saying that right now traditional banks are billions of times more efficient than Bitcoin, but you believe that Bitcoin will improve its efficiency in the future? That's quite some improvement that would be needed..
  - agilob 5y ago
    >but you believe that Bitcoin will improve its efficiency in the future? No, not at all. I'm quite sure Bitcoin will go down because of its inefficiencies and it only holds trading value because of "cryptocurrency whales" and sentiment. Every time it goes up I'm surprised that people still go this route while there are dozens of better solutions for whatever BTC was promised to be.
- liamwestray 5y ago
  https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/bank_branches/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/bank_branches/ You can go estimate it yourself pretty easily based on number of branches and some average energy use per square foot (pick the US’s commercial average as a upper bound to be conservative) Bitcoin consumes 'more electricity than Argentina' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952 But to summarize as someone who works in energy related research: All the banks in the world combined do not use as much energy as bitcoin alone now. Cryptocurrencies are inherently non-productive work as their algorithms are designed to solely be computationally expensive to create a means of artificial scarcity. Block chain isn’t the problem, non-productive hashing algorithms are.
  - broast 5y ago
    I would love some proof that all the computers that power all the bank and credit transactions, and all the financial derivatives they produce, don't add up to the power consumption of crypto. Then I would take into account how PoS would affect this in the future, as crypto is a technology that is meant to be built on, evolved, upgraded, and replaced by something better. Like money. Then probably ask which system is more democratic in its distribution and transparency of the money, and I would bet that system would finance less legacy climate destroying industries
RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
I obviously put that statement out because I knew it would enrage about the majority of people reading it, yourself included, blame me for being contrarian. But, let me continue. How do you store $100 million worth of value for 100 years in the current economy? You can't store it in dollars, it degrades exponentially with inflation. 100 years ago, a dollar was worth the equivalent of $13.90 today[1]. If that trend continues for the next 100 years that $100 million will be worth the equivalent of $10 million today roughly losing 90% of its value (wait that's almost 100%!). This is even before we factor in the fact that we only left the gold standard in 1971, and that the federal reserve have "discovered" new monetary stimulus strategies that promote inflationary practice. If you park your $100 million in dollars, you can almost expect the entirety of it will disappear in 100 years. So if putting your wealth in dollars doesn't maintain it, where are the smart people putting their wealth? Simple you can park it in a stable asset. I'll give you a good example of one of the most stable assets you can currently buy, which is real estate[2]. Which if you have ever bought a house or if you look at the markets you'll realize, this is where a lot of people park their wealth. Ever wonder why we could have so many homeless people when we have so much unoccupied real estate? Its not just because rich people are a-holes[3]. But to store $100 million in real estate, you need to construct that much market value in real estate. That's going to produce a lot of concrete, plaster, steel, glass, fiber glass, polysterene, polyisocyanurate, polyurethane, list goes on. Its going to burn a lot oil, a lot of coal, use up a ton of electricity. You think bitcoin is bad? Look at what the waste the construction process produces. If you want to see a climate catastrophe in the making, check out the ghost cities in china[4]. Now let's factor in the fact that even real estate value degrades. That is to say the house itself will have required repairs and the full economy will have added more houses so its value to the whole real estate economy has been diminished. And keep in mind most constructions are only built to last a set number of years. Keep in mind this is one of the best alternative stores of wealth that exists. You're not going to find very many asset classes that can keep its real value as well as real estate either[5]. And even if you do, they aren't going to be that much less polluting. Stocks in coca-cola is a production of corn to corn syrup to canned corn syrup. Stocks in nike is a production of nylon, rubber, and polyurethane. Gold has to mined and that has even more problems associated with it[6]. So people blame bitcoin for its energy expenditure because they want to point fingers, but you have to realize that when you start considering everything in the system, it is a far more efficient system overall than anything we're currently working with because its such a direct translation of energy into wealth. And if we're worried about pollution, we are free to swap out the energy creation for more sustainable alternatives as our society evolves, unlike concrete which is much harder to replace. People want to look at only a small section of things and point fingers because its easier, but when you start really pulling the thread to see what it looks like you start to realize how much of a hairball the whole thing has become. This post is already getting way to long so I'm going to stop it here. There isn't a single source to any of these, its just theories to how I see this world that has evolved over time. Sources provided, however, are true to the reality of the world we live in, which will not be changing from its capitalistic nature any time soon. Pretty sure I'm on my own island so please disagree with this post all you want. I'm just presenting why I believe other capitalist avenues for wealth acquisition and storage create significantly more inefficient systems. [1] https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1920?amount=1 https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1920?amount=1 [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/real-estate-is-still-the-best-investment-you-can-make-today-millionaires-say.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/real-estate-is-still-the-bes... [3] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/american-housing-has-gone-insane/605005/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/american-h... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in... [5] https://www.millionacres.com/real-estate-investing/articles/real-estate-vs-stocks-which-has-better-historical-returns/ https://www.millionacres.com/real-estate-investing/articles/... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining#Adverse_effects_and_responses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining#Adverse_effects_an...

> more ecological damage and pollution Source please?

lnxg33k1 5y ago

His bank account

dnautics 5y ago

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Actually, doesn't the US government tax “gains” from Bitcoin “appreciation”?
- dnautics 5y ago
  fine. Marginally paid for by bitcoin.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

agilob 5y ago

My counter question is: how much energy US banks consume? Every now and then a new article comes out about how BTC is wasting energy, it consumes X amount of energy comparable to <insert small country>. I email or tweet authors of such study/article if they have any estimates on how much energy and materials US bank offices consume: including AC or heating, computers left on over night, lights left over night, TVs playing ads. I asked that more than 5 times and not once got a response. I believe that running traditional banks in US and CA consume more energy than Bitcoin. Sure, bank produce billions times more transaction per day, but BTC will either be replaced by more efficient networks or will evolve into such. US banks used to send letters and cash in coal powered trains. Anyone got source on that?

tomas 5y ago
So basically you are saying that right now traditional banks are billions of times more efficient than Bitcoin, but you believe that Bitcoin will improve its efficiency in the future? That's quite some improvement that would be needed..
- agilob 5y ago
  >but you believe that Bitcoin will improve its efficiency in the future? No, not at all. I'm quite sure Bitcoin will go down because of its inefficiencies and it only holds trading value because of "cryptocurrency whales" and sentiment. Every time it goes up I'm surprised that people still go this route while there are dozens of better solutions for whatever BTC was promised to be.
liamwestray 5y ago
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/bank_branches/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/bank_branches/ You can go estimate it yourself pretty easily based on number of branches and some average energy use per square foot (pick the US’s commercial average as a upper bound to be conservative) Bitcoin consumes 'more electricity than Argentina' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952 But to summarize as someone who works in energy related research: All the banks in the world combined do not use as much energy as bitcoin alone now. Cryptocurrencies are inherently non-productive work as their algorithms are designed to solely be computationally expensive to create a means of artificial scarcity. Block chain isn’t the problem, non-productive hashing algorithms are.
- broast 5y ago
  I would love some proof that all the computers that power all the bank and credit transactions, and all the financial derivatives they produce, don't add up to the power consumption of crypto. Then I would take into account how PoS would affect this in the future, as crypto is a technology that is meant to be built on, evolved, upgraded, and replaced by something better. Like money. Then probably ask which system is more democratic in its distribution and transparency of the money, and I would bet that system would finance less legacy climate destroying industries

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago

I obviously put that statement out because I knew it would enrage about the majority of people reading it, yourself included, blame me for being contrarian. But, let me continue. How do you store $100 million worth of value for 100 years in the current economy? You can't store it in dollars, it degrades exponentially with inflation. 100 years ago, a dollar was worth the equivalent of $13.90 today[1]. If that trend continues for the next 100 years that $100 million will be worth the equivalent of $10 million today roughly losing 90% of its value (wait that's almost 100%!). This is even before we factor in the fact that we only left the gold standard in 1971, and that the federal reserve have "discovered" new monetary stimulus strategies that promote inflationary practice. If you park your $100 million in dollars, you can almost expect the entirety of it will disappear in 100 years. So if putting your wealth in dollars doesn't maintain it, where are the smart people putting their wealth? Simple you can park it in a stable asset. I'll give you a good example of one of the most stable assets you can currently buy, which is real estate[2]. Which if you have ever bought a house or if you look at the markets you'll realize, this is where a lot of people park their wealth. Ever wonder why we could have so many homeless people when we have so much unoccupied real estate? Its not just because rich people are a-holes[3]. But to store $100 million in real estate, you need to construct that much market value in real estate. That's going to produce a lot of concrete, plaster, steel, glass, fiber glass, polysterene, polyisocyanurate, polyurethane, list goes on. Its going to burn a lot oil, a lot of coal, use up a ton of electricity. You think bitcoin is bad? Look at what the waste the construction process produces. If you want to see a climate catastrophe in the making, check out the ghost cities in china[4]. Now let's factor in the fact that even real estate value degrades. That is to say the house itself will have required repairs and the full economy will have added more houses so its value to the whole real estate economy has been diminished. And keep in mind most constructions are only built to last a set number of years. Keep in mind this is one of the best alternative stores of wealth that exists. You're not going to find very many asset classes that can keep its real value as well as real estate either[5]. And even if you do, they aren't going to be that much less polluting. Stocks in coca-cola is a production of corn to corn syrup to canned corn syrup. Stocks in nike is a production of nylon, rubber, and polyurethane. Gold has to mined and that has even more problems associated with it[6]. So people blame bitcoin for its energy expenditure because they want to point fingers, but you have to realize that when you start considering everything in the system, it is a far more efficient system overall than anything we're currently working with because its such a direct translation of energy into wealth. And if we're worried about pollution, we are free to swap out the energy creation for more sustainable alternatives as our society evolves, unlike concrete which is much harder to replace. People want to look at only a small section of things and point fingers because its easier, but when you start really pulling the thread to see what it looks like you start to realize how much of a hairball the whole thing has become. This post is already getting way to long so I'm going to stop it here. There isn't a single source to any of these, its just theories to how I see this world that has evolved over time. Sources provided, however, are true to the reality of the world we live in, which will not be changing from its capitalistic nature any time soon. Pretty sure I'm on my own island so please disagree with this post all you want. I'm just presenting why I believe other capitalist avenues for wealth acquisition and storage create significantly more inefficient systems. [1] https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1920?amount=1 https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1920?amount=1 [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/real-estate-is-still-the-best-investment-you-can-make-today-millionaires-say.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/real-estate-is-still-the-bes... [3] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/american-housing-has-gone-insane/605005/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/american-h... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in... [5] https://www.millionacres.com/real-estate-investing/articles/real-estate-vs-stocks-which-has-better-historical-returns/ https://www.millionacres.com/real-estate-investing/articles/... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining#Adverse_effects_and_responses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining#Adverse_effects_an...