5 ms·

Searching for less harmful sources of energy can be done at the same time as pointing out frivolous uses of energy. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

• jkepler 4y ago
  Frappucinos are frivolous uses of energy. Where ought one draw the line?
  • socialismisok 4y ago
    Are they? If they are, then other things we do for pleasure must also be, right? Are videogames? Books? What about theater? I painted my office lavender last year, was the industry that made that possible a frivolous use of energy? What about eating beef? Certainly a hamburger is as frivolous as a frappucino, right? Or, it could be that none of the above are frivolous at all...
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • TheDong 4y ago
    I draw the line at adversarial wasting of energy. Bitcoin needs to waste energy for security. If humanity manages to produce twice the energy, bitcoin needs to waste so much that the economic price of the energy to attack it is similar, so likely bitcoin would have to use twice as much energy to produce the same good. On the other hand, if humanity were to produce twice as much energy, your frappucino would still take the same amount (or less if the machines get more efficient somehow!), and would maybe even become cheaper with the cheaper cost of electricity. Adversarial proof of work is designed to not be able to become more efficient. It is designed to only operate in energy scarcity. Without PoW, creating a fusion reactor may mean energy is effectively free for everyone. With PoW, electricity must have a high enough cost that it deters attacking bitcoin, so anyone who owns bitcoin has a vested interest in wasting electricity until it is scarce and costs money again.
    • 300bps 4y ago
      Your comment completely shuts down all of the silly Frappuccino arguments. The amount of cryptocoin created by mining each day is fixed. The amount of electricity used to get it determines its distribution. The more electricity you use relative to your mining peers, the more you’ll get. The incentive in this case is to use infinite energy unlike any other use case.
• gwicks56 4y ago
  The problem with that approach is that nobody agrees on what is frivolous. So it ends up being counter-productive as everyone squabbles about why their most hated thing is frivolous and should be banned/regulated, whilst the thing they like provides enough benefits that is should be left alone. Off the top of my head, the things I have seen people argue should be banned due to climate effects: - Eating meat - Plane travel - Cars - Only large 4WD's ( but not cars) - Clothes dryers - Bitcoin - AI - Computer games - Christmas lights - etc
  • landemva 4y ago
    And TVs in hotel rooms taking up space. If I could choose rooms with no TV, no alarm clock, no house phone, I would.