https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181029130951.htm
Original article : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8
Holy shit. We need clean energy fast!!!!! :(
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Bitcoin could push global temperatures over the 2ºC threshold by 2034
- Thread starter Pomerlaw
- Start date
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181029130951.htm
Original article : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8
Holy shit. We need clean energy fast!!!!! :(
Clean energy is not going to help. If electricity is cheaper, Bitcoiners will use even more of it because the system is an arms race. The more powerful someone else's system is the less you will gain and you will have to upgrade as well to get back your share.
Bitcoin is incredibly bad. It's unusable as a daily use currency and will cause our planet to die. Thanks, libertarians.
Bitcoin is incredibly bad. It's unusable as a daily use currency and will cause our planet to die. Thanks, libertarians.
OP
OP
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/10/30/bitcoin-climate-change-energy_a_23575836/
I know they wanted to install big centers in Quebec because we have clean electricity...
I know they wanted to install big centers in Quebec because we have clean electricity...
Something always pay when you use brute force st scale. I guess it's a little surprising to hear that it will be the environment.
OP
OP
There are a lot of assumptions in the study though, Here is a few from this article :
https://www.axios.com/no-bitcoin-is...ate-3fafbe80-d80c-4a0c-b191-1fcdafa18da1.html
https://www.axios.com/no-bitcoin-is...ate-3fafbe80-d80c-4a0c-b191-1fcdafa18da1.html
Some say a centralized system would be better. Other say that's not Bitcoin then.
There's no such thing as free money, there's always cost. This is the cost.
There's no such thing as free money, there's always cost. This is the cost.
That and Bitcoin would need to be as mused and common place like debit cards and credit cards
I still don't even understand what bitcoin is. I've never, ever been a customer of a store or service that accepted bitcoin.
My perspective is that it's for weirdos to buy/sell illegal pornography and illicit services. Can I pay my rent in bitcoin? Can I go to Target and buy some food and a game in bitcoin? Pay my phone bill in bitcoin? Fill up my car with gas in bitcoin? No.
My perspective is that it's for weirdos to buy/sell illegal pornography and illicit services. Can I pay my rent in bitcoin? Can I go to Target and buy some food and a game in bitcoin? Pay my phone bill in bitcoin? Fill up my car with gas in bitcoin? No.
I agree with the objection to the study in that article:
I believe mining is wasteful and hope that other crypto assets predominantly switch to other methods of security and minting, like Proof of Stake.
We desperately need to universally switch to better, renewable forms of power generation like solar and wind. It's bizarre to blame Bitcoin, it could disappear tomorrow and we'd still be fucked because of coal and oil. We need to elect representatives who will fight to tackle these root causes of environmental disaster.
Last edited:
You can't buy food at Target with gold but gold is still real and used for more than buying illicit services.
Bitcoin's not good for being used for illicit services because it isn't particularly anonymous. I know it was used for that several years ago but the government busting people for it showed that it's not the best use for it. Criminals use truly anonymous coins like Monero now. Bitcoin's meteoric rise in the past couple of years didn't have to do with its utility as a real-world currency (either for illicit services or for anything useful in our day to day lives), but instead it was a speculator-driven rush for riches for something with a finite quantity.
Bitcoin was also needed to purchase other crypto assets like Ethereum, Ripple, Stellar, and so on. Most of them don't take fiat currency. Those other assets might (or might not) be far more useful or less environmentally dangerous than Bitcoin but they don't take dollars, so there was always a demand for Bitcoin just to participate in this new market.
Last edited:
It's amazing how literally a tiny, tiny allocation of resources in relative terms is allocated to developing clean, sustainable power sources; grid-scale power storage; and carbon capture systems.
governments should be allocating hundreds of billions of dollars for this each year.
governments should be allocating hundreds of billions of dollars for this each year.
AFAIK, the mining fad is basically over, as most cryptocurrencies are moving towards a proof-of-stake model (so you get paid interest) instead of a proof-of-work (mining) model.
It hasn't been profitable to mine most coins for a while now anyway, it's also why GPU prices have stabilized.
It hasn't been profitable to mine most coins for a while now anyway, it's also why GPU prices have stabilized.
Some currencies have been backed by specific commodities. Nowadays the values of currencies mostly comes down to credibility of the governments issuing it. Bitcoin is weird in that its backing in that sense could be considered to be from solving really hard math problems, like Folding@Home with the difference being that it makes the world worse.
In truth, bitcoin isn't really backed by much, isn't taken as a payment in most places, and doesn't have any practical use outside of a medium of exchange (gold is a commodity like oil, meat, and car wax -- but what can you do with a bitcoin?). Supply and demand affect commodities; government relations and interest rate policy are some of the major drivers of currency value. Generally these are fairly stable values over time, especially currency. The problem with bitcoin is that it only has value because people say it does (at least you can read a copy of Action Comics #1), and unlike with most actual currencies there isn't a consolidated group trying to keep the price from tending to extremes. Bitcoin winds up trying to be a currency while replicating the worst aspects of speculative commodities trading (high tendency to bubble economies) and even failing to be a useful product the way most commodities are. It might be fair to think of Bitcoin as the commodification of hype, in that people invest in bitcoin specifically because lots of other people are investing in bitcoin (if this sounds like a lot like a ponzi scheme to you, well, it has all the same pitfalls, at least).
But I don't know, when I see people promoting it on Reddit they always tell me, like, something something antisemitic dogwhistle, so Bitcoin surely must be a good idea.
OP
OP
Can you guys elaborate on the proof-of-stake model vs the proof-of-work? I have problems understanding the concept... :(
Cryptocurrency is the most literal example of "Fuck the environment, I got money!" I can think of.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but basically my understanding is:
Proof of Stake: you get paid for the coins that you have, they are locked off and used as nodes (?). This is basically like getting interest in a savings account.
Proof of Work: you get coins for the mining that you do, and you can sell them (or stake them) as you wish. This is no longer profitable, as the costs of equipment, time required, and energy costs all add up to more than the value of the coin.
Lol people in this thread need to chill. Obviously at some point the cost of the electricity used outstrips the value of the Bitcoin mined. There won't be any Bitcoin-induced apocalypse.
What about proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies, or those with all of the currency already in existence so there's no need for environmentally damaging mining like Stellar Lumens or Ripple?
It's an speculative currency whose value derives from that, at the end of the day, someone will exchange it for dollars, euros, yen or some other standard currency. By itself it has no value, it doesn't have the support or backup of a real economy like standard currencies do.
I agree that Bitcoin is mostly driven by speculation but I disagree that it's somehow different from gold because of the latter's utility.
Warren Buffet once said,
The industrial application of gold doesn't justify its price of over $1200/oz. It's worth that much people of its scarcity, cost of digging it up, and because people want to buy it so that they will have more money in the future, just like Bitcoin.
I mean, Bitcoin has some practical applications too - it's one of the assets needed for exchange if you want any other crypto asset (some of which indeed have real utility) since most can't be exchanged for fiat currency. But like gold's practical applications, that's not why it's worth what it's worth - I agree, it's pure speculation and people buying it hoping to have more money in the future. I just don't think this makes it a ponzi anymore than gold is.
Although crypto currency is comparable to gold, the purpose and history of gold is not. Gold is a standard. It is not just some investment thing. Even though technically the The Gold Standard was abandoned in the 70's, it still is used to compare the various paper currencies of each country. Gold is directly linked to paper money. When economies struggle, gold value increases to act as the stabilizing factor.
Crypto currency is not directly linked to anything, and is definitely not stable. Crypto is not the same as gold.
Crypto currency is not directly linked to anything, and is definitely not stable. Crypto is not the same as gold.
