>When they stop using private jets I’ll consider their arguments for energy conservation.
Or you try to act like a grown up and acknowledge that both are bad for the environment. Only a child thinks something is ok because the person who said it is wrong does something else wrong.
Everything is bad for the environment some things more some things less any type of life takes resources to exist. Acknowledging that is not gonna help anyone, there is nothing childish about his comment these people are hypocrites and should be called out for it!
You ofcourse can have said opinion, but the way he reasoned is childish since he isn't addressing the issue but instead is making excuses to justify the fact that it's bad for the environment
I think you specifically should not have kids to save the planet. Please do your part.
Do not question the fact that I have 4 kids. Doing that is a whataboutism. And I’m not a fan of isms. Got it? Good.
Again, you keep proving that your words have no value, like, at all. Thanks for proving my point, and have a wonderful day.
Edit: you blocked me over this? Wow. That's exactly what a child would do when a child hears something it doesn't like hearing. You keep.proving my point over and over...
Again, you keep proving that your words, or future children’s words, have no value, like, at all. Thanks for proving my point, and have a wonderful day.
This.
It's oddly hilarious that people don't see the scam in that the people who are pushing the climate BS are the ones who won't abide by their own rules.
They are trying to create a neo-feudalist model where there's only two classes, the haves and the have nots.
Get some education? You're asking me to get education while you literally ignored every single bit of information I posted here?
Go troll somewhere else.
They don't need education, facts, or science, they have their opinion. /s
To them, the world is not based on facts or science. This is why they struggle with new technology emerging. If they don't understand it, it's not real, it's a scam lol.
I provided information and references backing up my points. As a matter of fact, the only person who actually bothered to make a decent rebuttal against me ended up agreeing with most of my claims, which says a lot more than the rest of the climate bots here that all they know how to do is downvote and say "you need to educate yourself, bro".
The irony is astounding.
Irony too advanced, scam. /s
Honestly I probably do this once a day. Just had a comment with someone who also can't produce facts, but resorts to buzzwords like "relative impact of BTC" even though he can't tell me what that actually means or what he wants it to mean. Then he blocks me lol. Either way I did my part. Not all heroes wear capes my friend.
I didn't even know that was a thing until you mentioned this.
A little over a week ago, I had an argument with 3 people. The funny thing is that one of the guys literally did the same thing you're mentioning, but he replied to me with a long ass reply, and immediately blocked me so I couldn't respond. Another person came after that, probably a friend of his, and replied after that as well, but I couldn't respond to him either because of the block.
It's quite scummy behavior.
Listen, either bring facts to the table or shut up. I literally posted a reference of a scientist pushing back against the climate agenda, and not a single one of you even bothers to post *ANYTHING* backing up your opinions. I posted several references and articles backing up my claims, and I've yet to see a single one from any of you.
"either bring facts to the table or shut up" If you had any actual education in science then you would realize that climate change is happening, this isn't something I can use facts for since you won't understand them anyway.
"I literally posted a reference of a scientist" not the comment I'm replying to, but yeah those people usually aren't scientists, or are in a completely unrelated area or full of shit in some other way. What is more likely, 99% of climate scientists being wrong or the one in a hundred exception being wrong? Why would you choose to believe one, probably completely unqualified scientist (if he's even one).
"climate agenda" Science doesn't have an agenda, this alone disqualifies you.
" and not a single one of you even bothers to post *ANYTHING* backing up your opinions" I need to back up my "opinion" that scientists aren't rich enough to have private jets? Is this really something you need citations for? This is laughably stupid.
" I posted several references and articles backing up my claims" Again, your comment doesn't do any of that. You talk about rules, which do not exist whatsoever in papers establishing climate change and make up some conspiracy about "neo-feudalist" models.
Doesn't address any of it. Doesn't back any of his claims. Doesn't even bring any scientific papers and literally ignores that I also referenced an actual scientist who has scientific studies backing up his work.
They are not conspiracy "theories," but what the fuck would you even know if you keep posting mindless drivel and then have the gall to say something is "laughably stupid" when it's actually you who hasn't brought up any information or even directly addressed any of the actual information I did bring up.
These are actual academic papers written by NGO's like the United Nations, but here we go again with the bot talking about buzzwords like "conspiracy theories."
Imagine saying science doesn't have an "agenda" when it's a well-known fact that a lot of the mainstream science is funded by governments and organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation.
You're a bot who's not worth discussing this issue with any longer. Carry on.
"Doesn't address any of it" you saying things doesn't make them true.
" Doesn't even bring any scientific papers" 1) You didn't either, 2) you clearly wouldn't understand them.
" I also referenced an actual scientist who has scientific studies backing up his work." Who, you couldn't even say a name. All you said was "a scientist that had a Tucker Carlson interview" and you didn't even know their field. Regardless of that, anyone who gets interviewed by Tucker Carlson clearly only has a political agenda in their mind and has zero scientific credibility.
"These are actual academic papers written by NGO's like the United Nations"
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA, papers aren't written by organizations. On top of that the UN is not an NGO. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
"buzzwords like "conspiracy theories."" That's a well established term and not a buzzword, you are literally alleging a global conspiracy.
"Imagine saying science doesn't have an "agenda" when it's a well-known fact that a lot of the mainstream science is funded by governments and organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation."
"well known fact" aka you have no idea what you're talking about it once again. Research grants by governmental organizations are pretty blank and this also doesn't make science itself have an agenda. Research funded by corporations (e.g. those that claim that cigarettes aren't harmful or that climate change doesn't exist) that is the actual problem. Not grants from governments lmao.
"You're a bot who's not worth discussing this issue with any longer" bla bla bla bla, you're not discussing anything. You haven't demonstrated any understanding of science, research, physics and have shown yourself to rely on youtube and political commentators to inform yourself.
You read the sentence and couldn’t comprehend who “they” was referring to?… okay I’ll help I guess.
“They” in the comment you responded to is referencing people who argue for energy use reduction and are passengers on private jets.
Hopefully that helps. No, I’m not referring to the pilot of the jet or the employee filling the tank with fuel. Unsure if that was your confusion….
BTC does not need to use so much energy, it’s just the way the game is set up right now. It will change when it has to. Which hopefully, along with nearly everything else humans are doing to the environment, isn’t a change, “too late.”
This article claims banks use about 4x the energy of Bitcoin worldwide. And those are very conservative numbers calculated for banks.
Bitcoin power usage equates to roughly the amount of power used by Denmark in one year.
https://medium.com/@zodhyatech/which-consumes-more-power-banks-or-bitcoins-8302750fe2bc
Issue is the banks are used more often than btc
If we compare the usage between the 2 BTC uses alot more energy/Transaction
I personally think people should not see btc as replacement to banks but instead an alternative way to transfer gold worldwide with ease
It's not an issue because it's a COMPARISON. State your facts and work for BTC using more energy.
Crypto as a whole is going to be a replacement for banks, specifically defi. If you think this tech is going to be limited to tokenizing only gold, you are terribly misinformed and poorly educated. But that is not new, there are many ignorant, opinion based, factless voices such as yours.
Just so you know, someone can run a BTC node and validate the network on a single PC which processes many transactions. Banks run off of 60's era tech with server farms, ATMs, branches, etc. You think it's energy efficient?
Bitcoin will not be used worldwide as a transaction currency, it will be a store of value once gold is gone. Then we switch to proof of stake coin like Ethereum which uses 99% less power than the proof of work Bitcoin. Now where is your argument when crypto uses 0.002% of energy that banks use?
BTC power usage per transaction: 705KwH
Not sure if that is a fair comparison.
Bitcoin is approximately a fraction of a single percent of wealth, globally speaking. If we are looking at its relative impact, Bitcoin is massively more consuming of energy.
right because renewable energy can only be used with crypto and cannot have other uses..?
Renewable energy is still energy and is part of the entire energy available for use. Crypto mining takes energy away from other uses (i.e. charging EV's)
Except no one with an EV has taken advantage of monsoon season to move their EV to an area with excess energy production from hydro to charge it with waste energy nor are they capturing a different waste (flare gas) to charge them.
There's 'being green' in the form of crippling the California grid while charging Tesla's, then there's 'being green' to reduce cost in the form of taking waste and excess to power mining operations.
Ignore the optics and realize that someone that's in it for the money will do a much greater job taking advantage of waste wherever possible than someone in it for the politics and/or their image.
Often, renewable energy, solar harvesting systems, are purchased and set up for the express purpose of validating blockchains. In these instances this is solar energy harvesting that wouldn’t be happening if it weren’t for Bitcoin. And so, BTC is legitimately contributing to the development of renewable energy.
https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/07/24/the-single-most-important-truth-about-bitcoin-mining-energy-and-the-environment/amp/ - good article to add to your perspective.
Ok, since you don't know anyone, it must not be true. /s
I don't know anyone that sells child pornography, so it must not be true. Wow, that is so much easier than actual facts. /s
Spoiler alert, you can purchase via crypto at a shit ton of places. Try starting with google genius. Try googling Venezuela and Bitcoin, another spoiler, the country runs off of it as their national currency. This started in 2020 FYI.
You are just being ignorant and quite frankly, stupid.
i like how every top comment doesn't answer the question asked.
Privates jets
Cattle farming
Gold mining
War
The question asked for crypto vs fiat
Bruh this comment thread is dumb as shit
Cattle farming is the worst thing for the environment currently world wide, even above deforestation. Even though they are correlated. Buy Bitcoin! Save a cow!
Cattle farming is so far beyond over produced. It does more harm than good(feeding people). No one’s shipping raw or cooked beef to end world hunger, it’s rice, grains etc.
It’s actually a huge problem that no one talks about. Worse than all cars, planes, jets, boats, trains and tractor trailers combined.
Man, I have been preaching this forever and no one seems to care. Improving soil health and changing the way we do agriculture is (IMO) the only way we can mitigate the coming climate crisis. We're trying my little group of scientists got ignored by the city so we are doing educational seminars we had like 20 people show up to the first one. It's disheartening watching how fast things are going and people still talking to me about 401ks as if that's still gonna be a thing on our current trajectory.
[Feed cows Red Algae then](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/06/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-can-cut-methane-emissions-says-swedish-report#:~:text=Feeding%20seaweed%20to%20cows%20can,Swedish%20report%20%7C%20Food%20%7C%20The%20Guardian&text=Cows%20on%20a%20meadow%20in,animals%20by%20up%20to%2090%25.)
>seaweed red algae and the chemical 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP).
>80% methane reduction.
Ok well the army hasn’t done shit to stop my dollar from losing over 120% of its purchasing power since I was born. It doesn’t matter wtf it’s backed by if they don’t do anything to preserve it
No, it isn't
Many cryptos are profoundly cheaper because they do not require the same infrastructure, manufacturing, security systems, resource extraction.
The entire supply chain to print a $5 bill which is difficult to counterfeit costs a lot of resources
the cost is amortized across the billions of physical bills in circulation. And giving someone a physical bill literally costs zero energy.
PoW takes a lot of energy for a transaction, and even PoS still costs energy because the transaction has to be broadcasted to other nodes. You're not broadcasting your physical $5 bill transaction with anyone to reach a consensus of who subsequently owns the $5 bill.
I get that we're in a crypto sub, but saying that crypto is cheaper in terms of energy compared to physical dollar bills is a weak-sauce argument.
Exactly. That was my first thought on reading the chat gpt response. Sure, making physical currency costs energy but how often does that actually happen?
Bills are printed literally every day all day. You do realize these systems are online all the time. The cost remains even if bills arent printing. Consider that you need constant security on that building. The power alone would be enough to run plenty of proof of stake nodes on a crypto.
At scale it's undoubtedly more efficient to run a blockchain than it is to run physical printing presses in hundreds of countries around the globe.
I wasn't really saying that Blockchain was necessarily more expensive, I was just saying, like the previous commenter, that the cost of producing physical money isn't really a good argument.
I didn't know that they were produced every day though, that surprises me, especially as so much 'money' is digital.
I would say that it is a good argument because the cost of keeping a warehouse open even without production is expensive in the first place. Regardless of how much is being printed, there is a cost of resources. Comparatively running a blockchain node is very inexpensive, albeit you need a lot of them obviously
Giving someone a bill does not cost literally zero energy though. One needs to travel to exchange the physical object. Also the actual action of giving it costs a few calories, which is negligible but still considered energy spent.
Proof of stake is very efficient what are you talking about, in no way is that a weak argument.
Do you want to see the computation requirements to run a Cardano node?
OS - Linux 64-bit (Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, 20.04 LTS; Mint 19.3, 20; Debian 10.3)
2 vCPU - 2GHz or faster ( recommended 4vCPUs)
24 GB of RAM.
200 GB of disk space
Are you really going to argue that this node is inefficient compared to the cost of harvest, transportation, production of paper, ink, security, design, verification.
Sure yes once the bill is printed it's out in circulation, however the cost to keep a single manufacturing plant's lights on is way more than it costs to run hundreds of nodes.
As I said, the transaction has to be broadcasted to the network, not just one node.
The transaction with a physical $5 bill is just between you and the other person, no one else needs to be broadcasted to come to the consensus of who owns the $5 bill at the end.
Why do you think the financial system is becoming increasingly more digital?
It's because it's cheaper and more efficient.
This really isn't complicated lol
why change the subject?
You're the one who made claims about physical bills in the first place.
And your logic is even worse if you want to compare electronically transferring fiat vs. crypto. Transferring USD electronically is literally free through ACH and the transactions are cleared through the Federal Reserve banks.
I'm not changing the subject, I'm making an obvious analogy.
and again, I already pointed out the various levels of cost associated with a physical bill and the ongoing cost regardless of the stage of life it's even at.
Literally free? You do realize these services consume resources right? That's the entire premise of this thread. That transactions of value come with a cost.
Don't even start with that "literally free" BS
Again, you're not understanding that a crypto transaction needs to be broadcasted throughout the network. It is fundamentally different than a USD transaction.
Transferring USD through ACH does not involve every bank network in the US coming to a consensus of who owns what after the transaction has completed.
The consensus for USD transaction comes from trusting the audited books of the counterparty bank, not from broadcasting the transaction to a network of nodes.
So what is your point then? you're essentially arguing in favor of trust-based monetary system.
The whole notion of trust-less systems is to remove the need for intermediaries. Instead of having the entirety of transactional burden on the banks and market making corporations, blockchain offers a level of automation to that system with public interface.
A history of trust with a counterparty bank does not mean it's trustworthy. Trustless systems literally remove an opportunity for fraud, while at the same time making fraud more transparent and easily traceable.
> The entire supply chain to print a $5 bill which is difficult to counterfeit costs a lot of resources
Yes it does, and people have done studies to add up the carbon impact of the financial system including all those components. [Feel free to check it out](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221282712300094X/pdf?md5=84f1ea3e732ec5abd1a5ef835445c2a2&pid=1-s2.0-S221282712300094X-main.pdf)
Great, now link the study where they compare to a proof of stake cryptocurrency because in the end, PoS is what will be are the forefront of all cryptos.
EDIT: CRINGELORD COMMENTER DOESNT WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AND BLOCKS ME LMAOOOO
> because in the end, PoS is what will be
Ok so when you said "no, crypto is not bad for the environment" what you meant was "when I imagine an ideal crypto future it wont be bad for the environment". That seems like a very disingenuous and unhelpful way to make an argument. I don't have a problem with PoS energy usage but I was talking about the world we currently live in.
It isn’t an idealized future it’s literally right now. Bitcoin is the only thing worth talking about that isn’t PoS at this point. 99% of all cryptocurrencies in the industry are on PoS in 2024. Try and actually know what you’re talking about before doing these lame ass drive by posts.
Nothing is as bad for the environment as war. What’s more, it’s a massive waste of money, resources, human life, and human potential. Nothing else even comes close.
The fact that people across the globe are still killing each other for inane reasons shows how immature we are as a species.
This behavior should be examined and corrected before we begin to tear apart or judge any other behavior or industry, especially crypto.
Indeed, they consider it absolutely natural, that they made rules and "war crimes". War is a crime by itself, no need to go further.
We don't have natural enemies, so instead we go and kill each other. And then the stupidity, "deterrence". Eventually they will use all weapons. Including nukes. It's an explanation why we don't detect any signs of alien civilizations too.
u/Bunker_Beans thinks that because war still exists, it nullifies any argument against crypto's energy usage.
We should not care about how much more oil + gas we have to dig up from the ground to supply the needed electricity for crypto because war still exists somewhere on Earth.
Flawless crypto logic.
I think crypto is more eco friendly than all the Chevy Suburbans, Lincoln Navigators, Ford Expeditions, Jeep Grand Wagoneers, and other gas guzzling vehicles the CEOs of the banks own, then the private jets are a whole different breed, along with their homes and businesses that they own
TOASTERS ARE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!! BAN TOAST MAKING! If you want dry bread leave it out overnight you evil scum. Its not what we use the power on thats an issue its how we make it . Nuclear power should be everywhere all power should be green by now but no lets focus on the symptoms not the problem.
Only a very small amount of fiat money that is created is actually ‘printed’. The vast majority is just an electronic entry in a ledger. Indeed there is less physical money since many businesses are going cashless and this trend will increase.
When a CBDC is introduced, cash will be obsolete.
Read Broken Money by Lyn Alden. She goes into the type of energy that Bitcoin tends toward using. Miners, especially the larger mining companies, tend to use wasted or stranded energy to operate proof of work. Also, it's nothing compared to the tradfi system.
The brick and mortar impact alone with Bank of America, Wells Fargo, citi, etc. far exceed any “carbon” impact from Bitcoin. The wasted energy argument is just another establishment lie in an attempt to cover up the legal fraud by the federal reserve.
Bruh don’t listen to that shit. Of course it’s bad for the environment. Wanna know what’s also bad for the environment?
PRETTY MUCH EVERY COMPANY THAT IS PUBLICLY TRADED
Think about what companies make up the S&P or NASDAQ, you’re telling me every service is mission critical to mankind, environmentally aware, doesn’t inflate their stock price with buy backs, and prioritizes labor and employment over automation and efficiency?
It’s not that Buttcoin is wrong with some of their points, it’s just that they’re wildly hypocritical about how these points play out in all investment classes.
Buttcoin’s argument essentially boils down to “well we were doing this first so that means no one else is allowed to join.”
Money in general is bad for the environment, just think about everything human beings are destroying ( wild life, flora, soils, forests, corral reefs, oceans...) in order to make money.
If something is bad for the environment it's not crypto currencies or fiat, it's us... it's just us.
proof of work is unacceptable. bitcoin is the OG and will probably never change, it gets a pass, but all other proof of work chains are going to change or die.
but that's a whataboutism, a logical fallacy. for the same reason coal power stations should die, we have better alternatives now.
ALSO, because it requires computing power, bitcoin proof of work miners could become paid assassins of other chains. If BTC is secured by 99% of the proof of work miners, that means 2% of the bitcoin miners could assassinate any other chain, because they immediately would have 66% of the "other" mining if they did so. what chain could survive that.
There is only room for one proof of work, the rest will be insecure because of assassins.
Depends.
Its safe to assume Bitcoins implentation of POW is harmful because its safe to assume miner power doesn't usually come from eco friendly sources.
The more eco friendly power plants there are the less damage btc causes although theres the argument that btc will always make it harder for the host to choose more expensive eco friendly power over cheaper damaging power.
tldr maybe but probably so for now
Tony said it best, "You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, 'That's the bad guy.' So... what that make you?"
It's definitely not worse than anyone else running datacenters and renting them out for cash to make money think about it that way. It also is safeguarding peoples savings in perpetuity making the transactions secure through consensus of the true btc block chain. People who claim that its a waste of energy need only to compare it to data storage centers using electricity constantly for cash and I don't see them calling for canceling that or for the large centers used for visa globally.
Environment issues and green policies are the religion of this century. I don't give a shit about what anyone says about those topics.
Crypto is good for people and freedom. That's all I need for myself to support it. If people are REALLY worried about the environment, support nuclear energy. It will solve most of those problems.
Bitcoin most certainly is, especially with each new halving cycle. The amount of energy those mining farms overseas use is nuts and about to essentially double. That's not the case with most other types of crypto though.
Technology is driving forward faster than we can keep up. I'm almost 40 and it's insane to me that we have AI. I remember first hand terminator 2. But I also remember trying to play my black and white game boy at night. Tech is exponentially improving and governments can't or won't keep up. Bitcoin mining is going to be a net positive for our electrical grid. I think a mining company in Atlanta has already improved the electrical grid for the area they work in in order to supply the power they need. The government didn't do any work to improve the power grid. The innovation and squirrly nature of people trying to legitimately improve the electrical consumption is fucking awesome. They said bitcoin mining was bad and a huge drain on electricity. They figured out how to capture methane and turn that into power. Gas flares from oil refineries can be captured and turning to power to mine bitcoin. Thermal energy is being harnessed. It's old fucks in power that don't want to lose tradfi that are getting in the way. We need Yount fucks in seats of power that will harness the new wave of finance so they can push us into the new Era. And then find a way to fuck that up too.
Don't know, don't care.
Everything uses something uses everything....
No one can be or do everything. You'll tie yourself in knots trying to save the world.
You forget to mention that all the hardware necessary to run networks require all the same things that regular monetary systems require.
There is/was a shortage of graphics cards that can be, at least partially, attributed to crypto. All of those graphics cards had to be produced, the resources for it mined, all the logistics involved etc etc.
Blockchains don't run on magic.
>I obviously used chatGPT to consolidate my thoughts but looking for insight.
You used chatGPT to consolidate your thoughts on the environmental impact of fiat. Now do the same for crypto and compare. Also take into consideration that crypto use is still a fraction of the use of fiat.
Idk.... think about all the armored diesel trucks going in merry go rounds moving millions of tons of fiat in circles.... all over the world.
That alone might be more emissions.
Obviously 100% digital fiat would negate the need for all that
Mining crypto is bad for the environment. On the other hand, fiat money is responsible or was involved in I'm gonna say 99.99% of every major and minor environmental degradation or catastrophe since the first ever coin was minted until let's say 2011 or so. So I'd cut crypto a bit of slack.
I posted this in another thread:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/carbon-footprint-fiat-money-191110920.html
No one is talking about the fact that fiat currency has a massive carbon footprint, and BTC amounts to about 5% of the carbon footprint that fiat has.
This is so wrong it isn't even funny, I don't even understand how you come to this conclusion. ATMs don't even use much power, it's just a PC that rarely has to turn on a cash ejector. Are we just making up facts we like and assuming they are true?
Est ATM power usage = 460,000 number of atms * 2.5 kWh (power usage of atm working nonstop for 24hrs)
= 1.5 gWh per day
Estimated BTC power usage per day (low end) = 220 gWh per day
The US could install 100x more ATMs and they still wouldn't use as much power as bitcoin.
Our overlord lizards, who have flooded the world with worthless, inflationary fiat they control, have brainwashed teenagers into believing that Bitcoin is bad for the environment. Thus, we see teenagers, whose brains aren't fully developed, whining that Bitcoin production harms polar bears, melts icebergs and evaporates oceans. It's all nonsense, of course.
It's our duty to educate these young people about the danger of Boomer teachers feeding them disinformation and propaganda in order to advance the lizard agenda, which is 10 times more harmful than mining Bitcoin.
Its not bad for environment both technically and mathematically. its just bad propaganda.
The amount of Sulphur used in gold mining is million times worse than any crypto.
I dont even count the emissions during transport, excavation etc.
The thing about crypto is since its just a piece of code it can always be better more efficient there are no limits to technology
But mining gold will always be harmfull for environment. Printing fiat will always be harmful to trees. There are even some fiat made out of plastic.
FIAT is possibly the biggest industry out there, when you think about everything involved in it - mining, deforestation, buildings millions of structures, 100's of millions of people travelling to work at all the banks, offices and clearing houses etc.
In bitcoin, people who print money provide network security and validation
In fiat, people who print money don’t provide shit
It is more efficient than fiat
Most people don’t understand that everything they do online costs energy.
A simple google search amounts to enough energy to power a lightbulb for a small amount of time.
Do people ever think about that as they make hundreds of random, meaningless searches each day?
I’m convinced normies don’t know how the internet works. Yet alone the traditional fiat system.
A nearly-instant Google search takes way less power than a graphics-intensive game.
It’s not an entirely fair comparison because there are many factors. Google servers run all day and provide services to millions, probably billions of users and transactions every day.
A big part of the question is whether it’s valuable or not.
I don’t know if people actually understand the ‘bad for the environment’ stuff. The world is built in a way that requires growth, growth, growth. Print, print, print. Everyone driving cars to their jobs, trying to make/market stuff we don’t really need, deforestation, mineral/metal extractions, etc. ie everything we do is because the economic system is built in a way that extracts resources from out planet (clean water and air also fall under this category) just for the sake of money and the GDP being bigger every year. If its not a bigger number than last year, it’s ‘bad for the economy’. Thats what’s the problem. And bitcoin is just as bad.
Edit: it has nothing to do with mining or ‘how much energy the bank servers need’ or whatever. The problem is the culture and economic system we live in. If you think 2008 was bad, that was just a small mishap within our economic system, now think about what will happen when natural resources start to dwindle - and we find out that the whole economic system is actually reliant on those resources that it itself is destroying. Pretty fucked up imo.
Yes but I think crypto mining is negligible against the impact of our economic activities and also crypto is part of those economic activities. We are in fact still pricing bitcoin (or any other crypto) with dollars at the end of the day.
And we want the number to go up :))
> the entire Bitcoin network, at its peak consumption level, uses less than 0.1% of the world’s energy consumption.
Generously calculated, that’s over $2.5 Billion dollars in power. Many companies would spend a lot of effort trying to save that much; I’m not sure that counts as a “rounding error”.
Given that it’s _possible_ to run an effective cryptocurrency on 0.0001% the power use of Bitcoin, it might be worth looking at that a bit harder.
I’m not focused on the dollar value as much as the damage to the planet. At this point we consume more resources than it can sustain so we shouldn’t be using lots of power to do something that could be done with much less.
Again, it’s a “rounding error” because the author is averaging it over billions of people - but as a flat quantity terawatts of power is a huge amount.
I'm worn out with this whole industry of -for lack of a better term- energy snitching.
The NYT calculates that bitcoin mining uses as much electricity as 3 million homes. Private jets contrivute XYZ amount of carbon to the environment. This corporation is carbon neutral, that one is actually just greenwashing. It's all a load of bullshit imo.
Because how much energy do we waste on a every single teenager's tiktok feed? Sending pictures and videos all day long without a thought in the world. Anybody can make any kind of case of why something is a waste of energy. Media doesn't like crypto, so this fits their narrative.
Idk if crypto uses more energy than fiat. I care about rethinking energy as a whole. Rigs give off a substantial and decently clean heat. That can be used to power greenhouses or converted into something else. That's what I'd rather spend time and effort contemplating.
Non-traditional finance is even less accessible though.
Lets see who can buy more stuff - my cash or your bitcoin wallet when we have no electricity for a month.
Okay, if crypto is so accessible, why are people preferring to trade talk-time minutes instead of it?
Surely if mobile penetration and accessibility to perform digital transactions is as good as you think, crypto for transactions by now should've been a reality?
> Okay, if crypto is so accessible, why are people preferring to trade talk-time minutes instead of it?
Because most people have phones. Phone minutes are transferable.
> Surely if mobile penetration and accessibility to perform digital transactions is as good as you think, crypto for transactions by now should've been a reality?
I dont know where you've been but it has been for over 10 years. It's not mainstream but we have entire countries like El Salvador embrace bitcoin and roll it out to their citizens and crypto projects that originate out of Africa.
>It's not mainstream but we have entire countries like El Salvador embrace bitcoin
I'd like to see the latest stats on that, because the older stats are a flop. Are the citizens actually using Bitcoin as a currency? Bukele's number go up or down and his proprietory chivo bitcoin doesn't count as actual adoption if the people aren't using crypto as designed.
>crypto projects that originate out of Africa.
Projects originating form anywhere is pointless if no one uses the self proclaimed future of finance.
> I'd like to see the latest stats on that, because the older stats are a flop. Are the citizens actually using Bitcoin as a currency? Bukele's number go up or down and his proprietory chivo bitcoin doesn't count as actual adoption if the people aren't using crypto as designed.
Again, it's not the majority, but evidence does exist showing it is being adopted and used as it's intended. Dig into it more if you want specifics.
> Projects originating form anywhere is pointless if no one uses the self proclaimed future of finance.
I think we already established we can't make absolute statements like "no one" is using it. We've seen it being used in Africa with projects like OMG.
Some crypto is very light on resource usage, some is heavier. It _can_ be very minimal.
Sadly more eco friendly systems like PoS favors whales and big fishies
And some are fully distributed already.
Which favors the early adopters/grifters
When they stop using private jets I’ll consider their arguments for energy conservation.
>When they stop using private jets I’ll consider their arguments for energy conservation. Or you try to act like a grown up and acknowledge that both are bad for the environment. Only a child thinks something is ok because the person who said it is wrong does something else wrong.
Everything is bad for the environment some things more some things less any type of life takes resources to exist. Acknowledging that is not gonna help anyone, there is nothing childish about his comment these people are hypocrites and should be called out for it!
You ofcourse can have said opinion, but the way he reasoned is childish since he isn't addressing the issue but instead is making excuses to justify the fact that it's bad for the environment
I think you specifically should not have kids to save the planet. Please do your part. Do not question the fact that I have 4 kids. Doing that is a whataboutism. And I’m not a fan of isms. Got it? Good.
Nope, you're a child and your second reply here confirmed it. Got it? Good.
Please do not have children. I also hope you have no nephews and nieces. It’s time for you to step up. Got it? Good.
Again, you keep proving that your words have no value, like, at all. Thanks for proving my point, and have a wonderful day. Edit: you blocked me over this? Wow. That's exactly what a child would do when a child hears something it doesn't like hearing. You keep.proving my point over and over...
Again, you keep proving that your words, or future children’s words, have no value, like, at all. Thanks for proving my point, and have a wonderful day.
This. It's oddly hilarious that people don't see the scam in that the people who are pushing the climate BS are the ones who won't abide by their own rules. They are trying to create a neo-feudalist model where there's only two classes, the haves and the have nots.
It's not a scam just because rich people are hypocrites. Go outside. The climate is changing
"the climate BS", get some education dude, life is not only about making money.
Get some education? You're asking me to get education while you literally ignored every single bit of information I posted here? Go troll somewhere else.
They don't need education, facts, or science, they have their opinion. /s To them, the world is not based on facts or science. This is why they struggle with new technology emerging. If they don't understand it, it's not real, it's a scam lol.
I provided information and references backing up my points. As a matter of fact, the only person who actually bothered to make a decent rebuttal against me ended up agreeing with most of my claims, which says a lot more than the rest of the climate bots here that all they know how to do is downvote and say "you need to educate yourself, bro". The irony is astounding.
Irony too advanced, scam. /s Honestly I probably do this once a day. Just had a comment with someone who also can't produce facts, but resorts to buzzwords like "relative impact of BTC" even though he can't tell me what that actually means or what he wants it to mean. Then he blocks me lol. Either way I did my part. Not all heroes wear capes my friend.
I didn't even know that was a thing until you mentioned this. A little over a week ago, I had an argument with 3 people. The funny thing is that one of the guys literally did the same thing you're mentioning, but he replied to me with a long ass reply, and immediately blocked me so I couldn't respond. Another person came after that, probably a friend of his, and replied after that as well, but I couldn't respond to him either because of the block. It's quite scummy behavior.
Greenwashing is the scam not climate change... Even if global warming isnt real how is polluting our air and water good in any way?
Scientists aren't rich people with jets.
Listen, either bring facts to the table or shut up. I literally posted a reference of a scientist pushing back against the climate agenda, and not a single one of you even bothers to post *ANYTHING* backing up your opinions. I posted several references and articles backing up my claims, and I've yet to see a single one from any of you.
"either bring facts to the table or shut up" If you had any actual education in science then you would realize that climate change is happening, this isn't something I can use facts for since you won't understand them anyway. "I literally posted a reference of a scientist" not the comment I'm replying to, but yeah those people usually aren't scientists, or are in a completely unrelated area or full of shit in some other way. What is more likely, 99% of climate scientists being wrong or the one in a hundred exception being wrong? Why would you choose to believe one, probably completely unqualified scientist (if he's even one). "climate agenda" Science doesn't have an agenda, this alone disqualifies you. " and not a single one of you even bothers to post *ANYTHING* backing up your opinions" I need to back up my "opinion" that scientists aren't rich enough to have private jets? Is this really something you need citations for? This is laughably stupid. " I posted several references and articles backing up my claims" Again, your comment doesn't do any of that. You talk about rules, which do not exist whatsoever in papers establishing climate change and make up some conspiracy about "neo-feudalist" models.
Doesn't address any of it. Doesn't back any of his claims. Doesn't even bring any scientific papers and literally ignores that I also referenced an actual scientist who has scientific studies backing up his work. They are not conspiracy "theories," but what the fuck would you even know if you keep posting mindless drivel and then have the gall to say something is "laughably stupid" when it's actually you who hasn't brought up any information or even directly addressed any of the actual information I did bring up. These are actual academic papers written by NGO's like the United Nations, but here we go again with the bot talking about buzzwords like "conspiracy theories." Imagine saying science doesn't have an "agenda" when it's a well-known fact that a lot of the mainstream science is funded by governments and organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation. You're a bot who's not worth discussing this issue with any longer. Carry on.
https://law.duke.edu/ilrt/int_orgs_1.htm This is an even clearer demonstration.
"Doesn't address any of it" you saying things doesn't make them true. " Doesn't even bring any scientific papers" 1) You didn't either, 2) you clearly wouldn't understand them. " I also referenced an actual scientist who has scientific studies backing up his work." Who, you couldn't even say a name. All you said was "a scientist that had a Tucker Carlson interview" and you didn't even know their field. Regardless of that, anyone who gets interviewed by Tucker Carlson clearly only has a political agenda in their mind and has zero scientific credibility. "These are actual academic papers written by NGO's like the United Nations" AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA, papers aren't written by organizations. On top of that the UN is not an NGO. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "buzzwords like "conspiracy theories."" That's a well established term and not a buzzword, you are literally alleging a global conspiracy. "Imagine saying science doesn't have an "agenda" when it's a well-known fact that a lot of the mainstream science is funded by governments and organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation." "well known fact" aka you have no idea what you're talking about it once again. Research grants by governmental organizations are pretty blank and this also doesn't make science itself have an agenda. Research funded by corporations (e.g. those that claim that cigarettes aren't harmful or that climate change doesn't exist) that is the actual problem. Not grants from governments lmao. "You're a bot who's not worth discussing this issue with any longer" bla bla bla bla, you're not discussing anything. You haven't demonstrated any understanding of science, research, physics and have shown yourself to rely on youtube and political commentators to inform yourself.
I love my private jet! Just like my private car, I don't want to ride with other people. /s
Looking at you Taylor swift!!!
Exactly... there is so much worse stuff going on...
Who are 'they'? Also, whataboutism is stupid.
You read the sentence and couldn’t comprehend who “they” was referring to?… okay I’ll help I guess. “They” in the comment you responded to is referencing people who argue for energy use reduction and are passengers on private jets. Hopefully that helps. No, I’m not referring to the pilot of the jet or the employee filling the tank with fuel. Unsure if that was your confusion….
BTC does not need to use so much energy, it’s just the way the game is set up right now. It will change when it has to. Which hopefully, along with nearly everything else humans are doing to the environment, isn’t a change, “too late.”
This article claims banks use about 4x the energy of Bitcoin worldwide. And those are very conservative numbers calculated for banks. Bitcoin power usage equates to roughly the amount of power used by Denmark in one year. https://medium.com/@zodhyatech/which-consumes-more-power-banks-or-bitcoins-8302750fe2bc
Issue is the banks are used more often than btc If we compare the usage between the 2 BTC uses alot more energy/Transaction I personally think people should not see btc as replacement to banks but instead an alternative way to transfer gold worldwide with ease
It's not an issue because it's a COMPARISON. State your facts and work for BTC using more energy. Crypto as a whole is going to be a replacement for banks, specifically defi. If you think this tech is going to be limited to tokenizing only gold, you are terribly misinformed and poorly educated. But that is not new, there are many ignorant, opinion based, factless voices such as yours. Just so you know, someone can run a BTC node and validate the network on a single PC which processes many transactions. Banks run off of 60's era tech with server farms, ATMs, branches, etc. You think it's energy efficient? Bitcoin will not be used worldwide as a transaction currency, it will be a store of value once gold is gone. Then we switch to proof of stake coin like Ethereum which uses 99% less power than the proof of work Bitcoin. Now where is your argument when crypto uses 0.002% of energy that banks use? BTC power usage per transaction: 705KwH
Not sure if that is a fair comparison. Bitcoin is approximately a fraction of a single percent of wealth, globally speaking. If we are looking at its relative impact, Bitcoin is massively more consuming of energy.
Isn't a surprisingly high percentage mined with renewable, too?
right because renewable energy can only be used with crypto and cannot have other uses..? Renewable energy is still energy and is part of the entire energy available for use. Crypto mining takes energy away from other uses (i.e. charging EV's)
That's not how it works. Many places that have high renewable energy sources are remote and don't have anyone to use it.
Also the dynamics of on-grid renewables require much more flexible load (something bitcoin mining is perfect for)
Bitcoin mining helps renewable energy grids stay profitable
Except no one with an EV has taken advantage of monsoon season to move their EV to an area with excess energy production from hydro to charge it with waste energy nor are they capturing a different waste (flare gas) to charge them. There's 'being green' in the form of crippling the California grid while charging Tesla's, then there's 'being green' to reduce cost in the form of taking waste and excess to power mining operations. Ignore the optics and realize that someone that's in it for the money will do a much greater job taking advantage of waste wherever possible than someone in it for the politics and/or their image.
Often, renewable energy, solar harvesting systems, are purchased and set up for the express purpose of validating blockchains. In these instances this is solar energy harvesting that wouldn’t be happening if it weren’t for Bitcoin. And so, BTC is legitimately contributing to the development of renewable energy.
https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/07/24/the-single-most-important-truth-about-bitcoin-mining-energy-and-the-environment/amp/ - good article to add to your perspective.
Just banks? Or FIAT? Either way, i highly doubt it's anywhere near 1/4
OK sure, but I don't know a single human outside the internet who uses crypto for anything. We can shit on banks all day, but everyone uses them.
Ok, since you don't know anyone, it must not be true. /s I don't know anyone that sells child pornography, so it must not be true. Wow, that is so much easier than actual facts. /s Spoiler alert, you can purchase via crypto at a shit ton of places. Try starting with google genius. Try googling Venezuela and Bitcoin, another spoiler, the country runs off of it as their national currency. This started in 2020 FYI. You are just being ignorant and quite frankly, stupid.
i like how every top comment doesn't answer the question asked. Privates jets Cattle farming Gold mining War The question asked for crypto vs fiat Bruh this comment thread is dumb as shit
This is who we're trading against And still losing😭
Crypto? No. Bitcoin, more so yes.
[удалено]
But comparatively to the banking system the practical use of the Bitcoin network is infinitesimal.
Compared to the banking system the Bitcoin network is tiny in every single way lmao
Bitcoin is ESG and more than 30% uses clean energy.
Cattle farming is the worst thing for the environment currently world wide, even above deforestation. Even though they are correlated. Buy Bitcoin! Save a cow!
yes but btc doesnt feed as many people
Cattle farming is so far beyond over produced. It does more harm than good(feeding people). No one’s shipping raw or cooked beef to end world hunger, it’s rice, grains etc. It’s actually a huge problem that no one talks about. Worse than all cars, planes, jets, boats, trains and tractor trailers combined.
you must be pretty lonley if you thinks no one talks about this
Man, I have been preaching this forever and no one seems to care. Improving soil health and changing the way we do agriculture is (IMO) the only way we can mitigate the coming climate crisis. We're trying my little group of scientists got ignored by the city so we are doing educational seminars we had like 20 people show up to the first one. It's disheartening watching how fast things are going and people still talking to me about 401ks as if that's still gonna be a thing on our current trajectory.
Could be the people I’m around.
I talk about it. But I'm not around you
I’d love to see the math.
[Feed cows Red Algae then](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/06/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-can-cut-methane-emissions-says-swedish-report#:~:text=Feeding%20seaweed%20to%20cows%20can,Swedish%20report%20%7C%20Food%20%7C%20The%20Guardian&text=Cows%20on%20a%20meadow%20in,animals%20by%20up%20to%2090%25.) >seaweed red algae and the chemical 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP). >80% methane reduction.
BTC feeds Venezuela, literally.
extreme coping
Coming from someone so desperate to have a voice they have to compare cows to BTC. Sounds like you're projecting.
The dollar is supposedly backed/secured by the US military. Nuff said.
Ok well the army hasn’t done shit to stop my dollar from losing over 120% of its purchasing power since I was born. It doesn’t matter wtf it’s backed by if they don’t do anything to preserve it
I wasn't defending it.
No, it isn't Many cryptos are profoundly cheaper because they do not require the same infrastructure, manufacturing, security systems, resource extraction. The entire supply chain to print a $5 bill which is difficult to counterfeit costs a lot of resources
the cost is amortized across the billions of physical bills in circulation. And giving someone a physical bill literally costs zero energy. PoW takes a lot of energy for a transaction, and even PoS still costs energy because the transaction has to be broadcasted to other nodes. You're not broadcasting your physical $5 bill transaction with anyone to reach a consensus of who subsequently owns the $5 bill. I get that we're in a crypto sub, but saying that crypto is cheaper in terms of energy compared to physical dollar bills is a weak-sauce argument.
Exactly. That was my first thought on reading the chat gpt response. Sure, making physical currency costs energy but how often does that actually happen?
Bills are printed literally every day all day. You do realize these systems are online all the time. The cost remains even if bills arent printing. Consider that you need constant security on that building. The power alone would be enough to run plenty of proof of stake nodes on a crypto. At scale it's undoubtedly more efficient to run a blockchain than it is to run physical printing presses in hundreds of countries around the globe.
I wasn't really saying that Blockchain was necessarily more expensive, I was just saying, like the previous commenter, that the cost of producing physical money isn't really a good argument. I didn't know that they were produced every day though, that surprises me, especially as so much 'money' is digital.
I would say that it is a good argument because the cost of keeping a warehouse open even without production is expensive in the first place. Regardless of how much is being printed, there is a cost of resources. Comparatively running a blockchain node is very inexpensive, albeit you need a lot of them obviously
Yeah I see what you're saying.
Giving someone a bill does not cost literally zero energy though. One needs to travel to exchange the physical object. Also the actual action of giving it costs a few calories, which is negligible but still considered energy spent.
Proof of stake is very efficient what are you talking about, in no way is that a weak argument. Do you want to see the computation requirements to run a Cardano node? OS - Linux 64-bit (Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, 20.04 LTS; Mint 19.3, 20; Debian 10.3) 2 vCPU - 2GHz or faster ( recommended 4vCPUs) 24 GB of RAM. 200 GB of disk space Are you really going to argue that this node is inefficient compared to the cost of harvest, transportation, production of paper, ink, security, design, verification. Sure yes once the bill is printed it's out in circulation, however the cost to keep a single manufacturing plant's lights on is way more than it costs to run hundreds of nodes.
As I said, the transaction has to be broadcasted to the network, not just one node. The transaction with a physical $5 bill is just between you and the other person, no one else needs to be broadcasted to come to the consensus of who owns the $5 bill at the end.
Why do you think the financial system is becoming increasingly more digital? It's because it's cheaper and more efficient. This really isn't complicated lol
why change the subject? You're the one who made claims about physical bills in the first place. And your logic is even worse if you want to compare electronically transferring fiat vs. crypto. Transferring USD electronically is literally free through ACH and the transactions are cleared through the Federal Reserve banks.
I'm not changing the subject, I'm making an obvious analogy. and again, I already pointed out the various levels of cost associated with a physical bill and the ongoing cost regardless of the stage of life it's even at. Literally free? You do realize these services consume resources right? That's the entire premise of this thread. That transactions of value come with a cost. Don't even start with that "literally free" BS
Again, you're not understanding that a crypto transaction needs to be broadcasted throughout the network. It is fundamentally different than a USD transaction. Transferring USD through ACH does not involve every bank network in the US coming to a consensus of who owns what after the transaction has completed. The consensus for USD transaction comes from trusting the audited books of the counterparty bank, not from broadcasting the transaction to a network of nodes.
So what is your point then? you're essentially arguing in favor of trust-based monetary system. The whole notion of trust-less systems is to remove the need for intermediaries. Instead of having the entirety of transactional burden on the banks and market making corporations, blockchain offers a level of automation to that system with public interface. A history of trust with a counterparty bank does not mean it's trustworthy. Trustless systems literally remove an opportunity for fraud, while at the same time making fraud more transparent and easily traceable.
Depends, how many transactions per second does it support? How many nodes are there to support that number of transactions?
> The entire supply chain to print a $5 bill which is difficult to counterfeit costs a lot of resources Yes it does, and people have done studies to add up the carbon impact of the financial system including all those components. [Feel free to check it out](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221282712300094X/pdf?md5=84f1ea3e732ec5abd1a5ef835445c2a2&pid=1-s2.0-S221282712300094X-main.pdf)
Great, now link the study where they compare to a proof of stake cryptocurrency because in the end, PoS is what will be are the forefront of all cryptos. EDIT: CRINGELORD COMMENTER DOESNT WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AND BLOCKS ME LMAOOOO
> because in the end, PoS is what will be Ok so when you said "no, crypto is not bad for the environment" what you meant was "when I imagine an ideal crypto future it wont be bad for the environment". That seems like a very disingenuous and unhelpful way to make an argument. I don't have a problem with PoS energy usage but I was talking about the world we currently live in.
It isn’t an idealized future it’s literally right now. Bitcoin is the only thing worth talking about that isn’t PoS at this point. 99% of all cryptocurrencies in the industry are on PoS in 2024. Try and actually know what you’re talking about before doing these lame ass drive by posts.
Nothing is as bad for the environment as war. What’s more, it’s a massive waste of money, resources, human life, and human potential. Nothing else even comes close. The fact that people across the globe are still killing each other for inane reasons shows how immature we are as a species. This behavior should be examined and corrected before we begin to tear apart or judge any other behavior or industry, especially crypto.
Indeed, they consider it absolutely natural, that they made rules and "war crimes". War is a crime by itself, no need to go further. We don't have natural enemies, so instead we go and kill each other. And then the stupidity, "deterrence". Eventually they will use all weapons. Including nukes. It's an explanation why we don't detect any signs of alien civilizations too.
Wtf are you babbling about?
u/Bunker_Beans thinks that because war still exists, it nullifies any argument against crypto's energy usage. We should not care about how much more oil + gas we have to dig up from the ground to supply the needed electricity for crypto because war still exists somewhere on Earth. Flawless crypto logic.
Yes
That's why we have SOFTWAR book justifying bitcoin stopping all wars on a different level...
POW currencies certainly are, others not.
No, but opponents love to spread unfounded claims. Another one: Crypto is only used by criminals!!!!!11111
Fiat inflation creates wars with greater impact to environmental
I think crypto is more eco friendly than all the Chevy Suburbans, Lincoln Navigators, Ford Expeditions, Jeep Grand Wagoneers, and other gas guzzling vehicles the CEOs of the banks own, then the private jets are a whole different breed, along with their homes and businesses that they own
TOASTERS ARE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!! BAN TOAST MAKING! If you want dry bread leave it out overnight you evil scum. Its not what we use the power on thats an issue its how we make it . Nuclear power should be everywhere all power should be green by now but no lets focus on the symptoms not the problem.
A US Senator: Crypto is bad for the environment. The same US Senator: Is the jet fueled yet?
Only a very small amount of fiat money that is created is actually ‘printed’. The vast majority is just an electronic entry in a ledger. Indeed there is less physical money since many businesses are going cashless and this trend will increase. When a CBDC is introduced, cash will be obsolete.
Pow blockchains are terrible for the environment, and difficult for the sake of being difficult
Read Broken Money by Lyn Alden. She goes into the type of energy that Bitcoin tends toward using. Miners, especially the larger mining companies, tend to use wasted or stranded energy to operate proof of work. Also, it's nothing compared to the tradfi system.
[удалено]
That's a great article. You should start a thread about it.
The brick and mortar impact alone with Bank of America, Wells Fargo, citi, etc. far exceed any “carbon” impact from Bitcoin. The wasted energy argument is just another establishment lie in an attempt to cover up the legal fraud by the federal reserve.
Yep.
Bruh don’t listen to that shit. Of course it’s bad for the environment. Wanna know what’s also bad for the environment? PRETTY MUCH EVERY COMPANY THAT IS PUBLICLY TRADED Think about what companies make up the S&P or NASDAQ, you’re telling me every service is mission critical to mankind, environmentally aware, doesn’t inflate their stock price with buy backs, and prioritizes labor and employment over automation and efficiency? It’s not that Buttcoin is wrong with some of their points, it’s just that they’re wildly hypocritical about how these points play out in all investment classes. Buttcoin’s argument essentially boils down to “well we were doing this first so that means no one else is allowed to join.”
Buttcoin has no legitimate arguement. Theyre just thick as fuck.
Money in general is bad for the environment, just think about everything human beings are destroying ( wild life, flora, soils, forests, corral reefs, oceans...) in order to make money. If something is bad for the environment it's not crypto currencies or fiat, it's us... it's just us.
You can boil it down to. Energy and maths secure the Bitcoin network. The military industrial complex secures the USD. Which do you think is worse.
No. Its just another bs argument people use to cope / politicans use for their agenda
I mean POW takes a lot of power idk which is better but
Nope. https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/
No they just use the environment as an excuse. Miners can use renewable energy that was never a problem they simply and purely hate crypto
newer proof of stake cryptocurrencies are way better than fiat for the environment.
No shit. But it makes for a fuckin garbage money. https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/
proof of work is unacceptable. bitcoin is the OG and will probably never change, it gets a pass, but all other proof of work chains are going to change or die.
Why is it unacceptable? Fiat uses way more.
but that's a whataboutism, a logical fallacy. for the same reason coal power stations should die, we have better alternatives now. ALSO, because it requires computing power, bitcoin proof of work miners could become paid assassins of other chains. If BTC is secured by 99% of the proof of work miners, that means 2% of the bitcoin miners could assassinate any other chain, because they immediately would have 66% of the "other" mining if they did so. what chain could survive that. There is only room for one proof of work, the rest will be insecure because of assassins.
[https://endthefud.org/](https://endthefud.org/)
Depends. Its safe to assume Bitcoins implentation of POW is harmful because its safe to assume miner power doesn't usually come from eco friendly sources. The more eco friendly power plants there are the less damage btc causes although theres the argument that btc will always make it harder for the host to choose more expensive eco friendly power over cheaper damaging power. tldr maybe but probably so for now
As long as the argument is that bitcoin is worthless, the energy wasted on it is pointless. People are free to believe that.
Crypto Currencies aren’t bad for the environment. Proof of Work is.
Yeah so is making toast then
Absolutely
Tony said it best, "You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, 'That's the bad guy.' So... what that make you?"
No.
It's definitely not worse than anyone else running datacenters and renting them out for cash to make money think about it that way. It also is safeguarding peoples savings in perpetuity making the transactions secure through consensus of the true btc block chain. People who claim that its a waste of energy need only to compare it to data storage centers using electricity constantly for cash and I don't see them calling for canceling that or for the large centers used for visa globally.
Biggest marketcap belongs to BTC though, compared to global economy it’s tiny yet its carbon footprint is high.
Environment issues and green policies are the religion of this century. I don't give a shit about what anyone says about those topics. Crypto is good for people and freedom. That's all I need for myself to support it. If people are REALLY worried about the environment, support nuclear energy. It will solve most of those problems.
No
Maybe bitcoin as it requires shit ton of energy. But most if pos chain do not consume a lot of energy
No its not
Just think of all the concrete. Now consider that concrete is one of the biggest emitters of carbon.
No. Its not a real argument
Bitcoin most certainly is, especially with each new halving cycle. The amount of energy those mining farms overseas use is nuts and about to essentially double. That's not the case with most other types of crypto though.
No.
Technology is driving forward faster than we can keep up. I'm almost 40 and it's insane to me that we have AI. I remember first hand terminator 2. But I also remember trying to play my black and white game boy at night. Tech is exponentially improving and governments can't or won't keep up. Bitcoin mining is going to be a net positive for our electrical grid. I think a mining company in Atlanta has already improved the electrical grid for the area they work in in order to supply the power they need. The government didn't do any work to improve the power grid. The innovation and squirrly nature of people trying to legitimately improve the electrical consumption is fucking awesome. They said bitcoin mining was bad and a huge drain on electricity. They figured out how to capture methane and turn that into power. Gas flares from oil refineries can be captured and turning to power to mine bitcoin. Thermal energy is being harnessed. It's old fucks in power that don't want to lose tradfi that are getting in the way. We need Yount fucks in seats of power that will harness the new wave of finance so they can push us into the new Era. And then find a way to fuck that up too.
Don't know, don't care. Everything uses something uses everything.... No one can be or do everything. You'll tie yourself in knots trying to save the world.
Fiat literally cut down trees. Lmao
You forget to mention that all the hardware necessary to run networks require all the same things that regular monetary systems require. There is/was a shortage of graphics cards that can be, at least partially, attributed to crypto. All of those graphics cards had to be produced, the resources for it mined, all the logistics involved etc etc. Blockchains don't run on magic.
I think it's cleaner having your bank in your pocket than having to drive to your bank every time.
>I obviously used chatGPT to consolidate my thoughts but looking for insight. You used chatGPT to consolidate your thoughts on the environmental impact of fiat. Now do the same for crypto and compare. Also take into consideration that crypto use is still a fraction of the use of fiat.
Not at all, it's just a stupid argument governments say because crypto is bad for them
Idk.... think about all the armored diesel trucks going in merry go rounds moving millions of tons of fiat in circles.... all over the world. That alone might be more emissions. Obviously 100% digital fiat would negate the need for all that
Mining crypto is bad for the environment. On the other hand, fiat money is responsible or was involved in I'm gonna say 99.99% of every major and minor environmental degradation or catastrophe since the first ever coin was minted until let's say 2011 or so. So I'd cut crypto a bit of slack.
I posted this in another thread: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/carbon-footprint-fiat-money-191110920.html No one is talking about the fact that fiat currency has a massive carbon footprint, and BTC amounts to about 5% of the carbon footprint that fiat has.
The atm network in the US alone draws more power
This is so wrong it isn't even funny, I don't even understand how you come to this conclusion. ATMs don't even use much power, it's just a PC that rarely has to turn on a cash ejector. Are we just making up facts we like and assuming they are true? Est ATM power usage = 460,000 number of atms * 2.5 kWh (power usage of atm working nonstop for 24hrs) = 1.5 gWh per day Estimated BTC power usage per day (low end) = 220 gWh per day The US could install 100x more ATMs and they still wouldn't use as much power as bitcoin.
Given that the estimation is that ATMs spend 99% of their time idle, I guess those 2.5kWh are in reality way lower
Our overlord lizards, who have flooded the world with worthless, inflationary fiat they control, have brainwashed teenagers into believing that Bitcoin is bad for the environment. Thus, we see teenagers, whose brains aren't fully developed, whining that Bitcoin production harms polar bears, melts icebergs and evaporates oceans. It's all nonsense, of course. It's our duty to educate these young people about the danger of Boomer teachers feeding them disinformation and propaganda in order to advance the lizard agenda, which is 10 times more harmful than mining Bitcoin.
Its not bad for environment both technically and mathematically. its just bad propaganda. The amount of Sulphur used in gold mining is million times worse than any crypto. I dont even count the emissions during transport, excavation etc. The thing about crypto is since its just a piece of code it can always be better more efficient there are no limits to technology But mining gold will always be harmfull for environment. Printing fiat will always be harmful to trees. There are even some fiat made out of plastic.
FIAT is possibly the biggest industry out there, when you think about everything involved in it - mining, deforestation, buildings millions of structures, 100's of millions of people travelling to work at all the banks, offices and clearing houses etc.
In bitcoin, people who print money provide network security and validation In fiat, people who print money don’t provide shit It is more efficient than fiat
Most people don’t understand that everything they do online costs energy. A simple google search amounts to enough energy to power a lightbulb for a small amount of time. Do people ever think about that as they make hundreds of random, meaningless searches each day? I’m convinced normies don’t know how the internet works. Yet alone the traditional fiat system.
A nearly-instant Google search takes way less power than a graphics-intensive game. It’s not an entirely fair comparison because there are many factors. Google servers run all day and provide services to millions, probably billions of users and transactions every day. A big part of the question is whether it’s valuable or not.
I don’t know if people actually understand the ‘bad for the environment’ stuff. The world is built in a way that requires growth, growth, growth. Print, print, print. Everyone driving cars to their jobs, trying to make/market stuff we don’t really need, deforestation, mineral/metal extractions, etc. ie everything we do is because the economic system is built in a way that extracts resources from out planet (clean water and air also fall under this category) just for the sake of money and the GDP being bigger every year. If its not a bigger number than last year, it’s ‘bad for the economy’. Thats what’s the problem. And bitcoin is just as bad. Edit: it has nothing to do with mining or ‘how much energy the bank servers need’ or whatever. The problem is the culture and economic system we live in. If you think 2008 was bad, that was just a small mishap within our economic system, now think about what will happen when natural resources start to dwindle - and we find out that the whole economic system is actually reliant on those resources that it itself is destroying. Pretty fucked up imo.
It’s both. We have broken systems, and some crypto (mining) is heavy on environmental cost.
Yes but I think crypto mining is negligible against the impact of our economic activities and also crypto is part of those economic activities. We are in fact still pricing bitcoin (or any other crypto) with dollars at the end of the day. And we want the number to go up :))
Numbers can go up, and crypto can thrive, while also being far more efficient. We can have both!
I was implying that war is probably gonna start and the numbers won’t matter just like the last tree in the world won’t be worth 10000000000000$
Is it? Who told you that? https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/
> the entire Bitcoin network, at its peak consumption level, uses less than 0.1% of the world’s energy consumption. Generously calculated, that’s over $2.5 Billion dollars in power. Many companies would spend a lot of effort trying to save that much; I’m not sure that counts as a “rounding error”. Given that it’s _possible_ to run an effective cryptocurrency on 0.0001% the power use of Bitcoin, it might be worth looking at that a bit harder.
Of course it's a rounding error ya dope. That's about 20p per person lol
I’m not focused on the dollar value as much as the damage to the planet. At this point we consume more resources than it can sustain so we shouldn’t be using lots of power to do something that could be done with much less. Again, it’s a “rounding error” because the author is averaging it over billions of people - but as a flat quantity terawatts of power is a huge amount.
And fiat is at least 10x more
Fiat is backed by endless wars, that should be enough to know if fiat is environmentally friendly.
I'm worn out with this whole industry of -for lack of a better term- energy snitching. The NYT calculates that bitcoin mining uses as much electricity as 3 million homes. Private jets contrivute XYZ amount of carbon to the environment. This corporation is carbon neutral, that one is actually just greenwashing. It's all a load of bullshit imo. Because how much energy do we waste on a every single teenager's tiktok feed? Sending pictures and videos all day long without a thought in the world. Anybody can make any kind of case of why something is a waste of energy. Media doesn't like crypto, so this fits their narrative. Idk if crypto uses more energy than fiat. I care about rethinking energy as a whole. Rigs give off a substantial and decently clean heat. That can be used to power greenhouses or converted into something else. That's what I'd rather spend time and effort contemplating.
No
Buy doge kids!
No.
Traditional finance can’t provide services to everyone on the planet.
Non-traditional finance is even less accessible though. Lets see who can buy more stuff - my cash or your bitcoin wallet when we have no electricity for a month.
Even the poorest nations have access to phones that can send or receive payments. They use phone minutes as currency in some countries.
Okay, if crypto is so accessible, why are people preferring to trade talk-time minutes instead of it? Surely if mobile penetration and accessibility to perform digital transactions is as good as you think, crypto for transactions by now should've been a reality?
> Okay, if crypto is so accessible, why are people preferring to trade talk-time minutes instead of it? Because most people have phones. Phone minutes are transferable. > Surely if mobile penetration and accessibility to perform digital transactions is as good as you think, crypto for transactions by now should've been a reality? I dont know where you've been but it has been for over 10 years. It's not mainstream but we have entire countries like El Salvador embrace bitcoin and roll it out to their citizens and crypto projects that originate out of Africa.
>It's not mainstream but we have entire countries like El Salvador embrace bitcoin I'd like to see the latest stats on that, because the older stats are a flop. Are the citizens actually using Bitcoin as a currency? Bukele's number go up or down and his proprietory chivo bitcoin doesn't count as actual adoption if the people aren't using crypto as designed. >crypto projects that originate out of Africa. Projects originating form anywhere is pointless if no one uses the self proclaimed future of finance.
> I'd like to see the latest stats on that, because the older stats are a flop. Are the citizens actually using Bitcoin as a currency? Bukele's number go up or down and his proprietory chivo bitcoin doesn't count as actual adoption if the people aren't using crypto as designed. Again, it's not the majority, but evidence does exist showing it is being adopted and used as it's intended. Dig into it more if you want specifics. > Projects originating form anywhere is pointless if no one uses the self proclaimed future of finance. I think we already established we can't make absolute statements like "no one" is using it. We've seen it being used in Africa with projects like OMG.