At a time when the masses are being guilt tripped to live in tiny houses, shower once a week, and eat worms to avert a climate disaster, there's no way I would ever endorse Bitcoin. Why not? Because the energy consumed during a single transaction would power my three bedroom house for a week. And that's without considering the recent pip…
At a time when the masses are being guilt tripped to live in tiny houses, shower once a week, and eat worms to avert a climate disaster, there's no way I would ever endorse Bitcoin. Why not? Because the energy consumed during a single transaction would power my three bedroom house for a week. And that's without considering the recent pipeline ransomware attack here in the Southeast which surely involved cryptocurrency.
So, Mr. Balaji S. Srinvasan, a million, billion, sextillion times no for bitcoin.
We've covered this a lot in the community, but the short version is:
a) The goal must be massive increases in clean energy production (eg via nuclear or other renewables), as opposed to reduction in consumption (which quickly hits diminishing returns and runs into the fact that Asia isn't going to freeze its economies). See the Henry Adams Curve: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1327009794343931905
b) Proof-of-work mining in particular is a way to turn curtailed/stranded energy into cryptocurrency, rather than simply wasting it, which can be used to make renewable energy more cost-effective.
You said nuclear. The sheep have watched too many documentaries like HBO Chernobyl and The China Syndrome to trust nuclear. Also, they didn’t take or understand any physics or chemistry in college.
I find it odd that Balaji never even mentioned energy consumption, when that is one of the most common arguments against Bitcoin. However, I recently saw somebody point out that such an argument must also account for the energy, materials, and manpower used for printing/coining money, running banking systems, and various related processes.
Why would Balaji mention the most inconvenient, deal breaking fact about Bitcoin instead of sweeping it under the rug?
My hunch is that if most people on earth used Bitcoin instead of cash and credit cards, the energy used would overwhelmingly dwarf what it takes to print cash (a one time expense) and run banks and credit card systems.
No. A future with Bitcoin is like the bleakest episode of Black Mirror.
At a time when the masses are being guilt tripped to live in tiny houses, shower once a week, and eat worms to avert a climate disaster, there's no way I would ever endorse Bitcoin. Why not? Because the energy consumed during a single transaction would power my three bedroom house for a week. And that's without considering the recent pipeline ransomware attack here in the Southeast which surely involved cryptocurrency.
So, Mr. Balaji S. Srinvasan, a million, billion, sextillion times no for bitcoin.
Luddite
We've covered this a lot in the community, but the short version is:
a) The goal must be massive increases in clean energy production (eg via nuclear or other renewables), as opposed to reduction in consumption (which quickly hits diminishing returns and runs into the fact that Asia isn't going to freeze its economies). See the Henry Adams Curve: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1327009794343931905
b) Proof-of-work mining in particular is a way to turn curtailed/stranded energy into cryptocurrency, rather than simply wasting it, which can be used to make renewable energy more cost-effective.
See:
1) https://www.coindesk.com/the-last-word-on-bitcoins-energy-consumption
2) https://www.coindesk.com/podcasts/coindesks-money-reimagined/renewable-energy-bitcoin-meltem-harry-sudock
3) https://www.seetee.io/static/shareholder_letter-6ae7e85717c28831bf1c0eca1d632722.pdf
4) https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1392862179075006466
You said nuclear. The sheep have watched too many documentaries like HBO Chernobyl and The China Syndrome to trust nuclear. Also, they didn’t take or understand any physics or chemistry in college.
I find it odd that Balaji never even mentioned energy consumption, when that is one of the most common arguments against Bitcoin. However, I recently saw somebody point out that such an argument must also account for the energy, materials, and manpower used for printing/coining money, running banking systems, and various related processes.
Why would Balaji mention the most inconvenient, deal breaking fact about Bitcoin instead of sweeping it under the rug?
My hunch is that if most people on earth used Bitcoin instead of cash and credit cards, the energy used would overwhelmingly dwarf what it takes to print cash (a one time expense) and run banks and credit card systems.
No. A future with Bitcoin is like the bleakest episode of Black Mirror.
https://www.wired.com/story/iceland-bitcoin-mining-gallery/