4 ms·
This discussion will go nowhere. Clearly the pro-Bitcoin crowd thinks proof of work is the most efficient way to get a permissionless, trustless, decentralised
by solveit 4y ago
This discussion will go nowhere. Clearly the pro-Bitcoin crowd thinks proof of work is the most efficient way to get a permissionless, trustless, decentralised currency. And the anti-Bitcoin crowd either thinks
1. It's not the most efficient way and there's an alternative (e.g. Proof of Stake)
or
2. It may or may not be the most efficient way, but Bitcoin doesn't provide the value to justify the carbon emissions ('just tax carbon commensurate to its negative externalities and let people decide for themselves', he says helplessly)
- vmception 4y agoI’m mostly avoiding the utility argument because the stranded energy reality is so much better As its not taking away from another use of energy and it’s reducing pollution, and is more likely to be the majority kind of bitcoin mining
- upsidesinclude 4y agoThis deserves to be the top posted comment, but will certainly never be. Controversial Take: There is effectively no ceiling on the value potential of Bitcoin. If you live in a hyperinflationary environment, of which there are tons of examples in the last 100 years, the value is known. To people living with the $dollar and expecting endless monetary superiority, it is hard to recognize. It's important to note, there is incentive for miners to use renewable energy. Vast amounts of capital have propped up renewables that languish for lack of a proper demand. Wind isn't on demand, nor is solar. But there's never any discussion of the waste and pollution that subsidized unproductive green energy solutions produce. Mining can utilize 100% of that supply. It acts as a reinforcing mechanism for investment in clean energy. How is this lost on people?