Ah, now I see your issue. I don't necessarily agree with you. Utility of a good is in the eyes of the beholder, in my opinion. But I do see your, and other folks, anger with BTC energy use: They don't view BTC as having any utility. Thanks for making sense of that for me.
If criticizing Bitcoin mining as being energy inefficient brings about a greater awareness to renewables then I don't see any harm in it.
I do think it's reasonable to compare energy consumption for BTC to gold mining and currency production/supply chain however I also think that making these computing farms green would be an advantage long term. Just because what BTC is trying to replace isn't carbon neutral doesn't mean crypto shouldn't strive to be
it doesn't even have to be binary, theres just mechanisms of scale regarding utility vs production costs. even if you think btc has SOME utility is the production burden worth it comparatively?
Oh sure, no reason to be binary. So people who think BTC has a lot of utility may think the production costs are more justified than people who think BTC has no utility. :endthread:
then people should say that instead of WHATABOUT "insert industry here" or "well *future green tech that isn't broadly used yet or exists at a scale capable of producing the energy needed*" or "WELL YOU OWN A CELL PHONE" or insert any of the half dozen other ones made over the last two pages your argument there is at least modestly defensible the free market capitalist class argument seems to be the most honest if you can wade through the rest
I've been in and out of since the first few days. It's clearly manipulated, originally by the devs and now by whale holders. There have been clear price walls that set off massive dumps along the way. Don't buy when you see it nearing .15 if whatever decimal it is on.
Thank you. And yes, I'm a pretty big free market capitalist guy. Look, if I was King of the world and had to distribute energy allowances by broad end product, BTC would be pretty far down on the list. As would gold and silver. Shelter, food and safety/security would be at the top. But that's not how it works and you don't want me as King of the world anyway. Let the market/people figure it out, within reason.
When in the history of the world has the market ever figured it out without regulation or interference? Pretty much all industry is in direct conflict with climate and our long term health, crypto isn't unique to this. But it is new enough that attention and regulation aren't really being discussed at the proper levels yet.
By only raising concerns about btc energy consumption but ignoring every other form of energy consumption, you're kind of giving up the game.
To quote Oranjello "If it is truly a show stopper for people then they should stick to stocks that closely follow ESG principles, otherwise it's just a form of whataboutism."
Coinbase pro at a minimum. If you have free or cheap bank wires, Kraken is much lower than even Coinbase Pro. Coinbae Pro has free ACH transfer and then you pay whatever the buy fee % is on the btc. Kraken's fee is much lower than coinbase pro but doesn't offer free ACH for deposits yet.
I find it funny that the same people talking about computers, cell phones, shoes, and cow farts are accusing others of whataboutism.
Reading comprehension in this thread is lacking. I was putting the argument into context and not making accusations
I'm really not. I saved that article above to read later fwiw. I just respond in kind when people do really lazy logical fallacies.
Sure. Btc uses energy; like lots of things. Not 100% of it is clean. Would be better if it was. The end.
OK, so when folks point that out, why do continually what about ______. I mean you literally did it in this very post.
I love the well this is why people don't like crypto people he was just asking a question. Dbl has been asking the same stupid questions for 2 years now. He's been in this thread and saw 30 articles posted about tether or energy consumption multiple times. Lyrch being an arrogant asshole that thinks he's the smartest guy in the room is nothing new either. Probably why people aren't met with the most sincere responses when they post disingenuous garbage in here.
Nice little summary from the Carter article “Bitcoin sure consumes a lot of energy” is a metonymy for “Bitcoin should not be allowed to exist.” If they were interested in the facts, they’d report the facts. They would talk about the challenge of ascertaining a reliable energy mix, and the prospects for renewable mining or mining with nonrival energy. They would talk about overabundant energy in south west China. They would talk about the declining LCOE for solar and the prospects for mining with battery-augmented solar in the long term. They’d talk about how Bitcoin monetizes stranded energy assets. But instead, they elevate junk science that relies on complete misunderstandings of how Bitcoin actually works. This is all a sign that they care only about the values, not the facts. I will never deny that Bitcoin uses energy, nor will I deny that it has climate externalities. But the way to solve that is by guiding mining towards a greener future. The debate requires a thorough understanding of the facts, and that is what we must pursue. I happen to be extremely optimistic about the possibility for decarbonized mining in the long term, and I think Bitcoin is well-suited to monetizing stranded sources of energy, many of which are renewable. But the NYT’s elevation of junk science helps no one. They do disservice to the environmental cause by being such unsound advocates. Critics of Bitcoin deserve better.
Well, you should work on how you post then, because you come off as a gigantic asshole more times than not
Because having seen the energy issue raised by countless critics for years, it is a disingenuous concern that is not focused on facts. The whatabout game is merely a simple retort to show that whoever is raising the concern is screeching about btc because they don't want btc to exist while ignoring the energy that countless other things use. If dbl started the whole energy thing, it's even funnier. He has been around for years in this thread and seen the same articles addressing the same points.
I'm just saying, you're trying to put the blame of how this thread acts on dbl and Lyrtch, when there's plenty of others ITT that drive the narrative more than either of them.
The people that are actually involved in crypto are in here and have been for a while, the drive by people that caught the latest arguement about bitcoin from the usa today I have less than zero time for and I will continue to make fun of. You can block me if you're so offended
You're new here, so I will attempt to be nice. Many of us have been addressing these same concerns and having the same arguments for literally years. Btc needs better critics imo. There have been countless articles and reports done on things like tether and energy usage. I am serious when I say something like "you should read these 8 articles." It is how I started learning about the space 4 years ago. I consumed, and still do consume, as much content as possible from people who are far smarter than me. And then I formed my own opinion as to which side I thought was right. Posting articles is my way of trying to get you to do the same.
I did look at those articles, and none of them actually say that scientifically, BTC mining is safe for the environment. WHICH is what you claimed, and I asked you to prove.
The refusal to acknowledge that regulations could be a net positive is weird. Yes, lots of other industries are terrible for the environment too. Most of them have regulations in place or else they'd be much worse than they currently are. Bringing them up isn't the gotcha that some of you think it is.
Well hold on here. Show a single post where I said btc mining is scientifically "safe for the environment." This is a strawman that I never claimed. Setting that aside, I don't even know how one would "prove" that. Evaluate every mining setup on the planet? I guess. You seem to be looking for something that I never represented as existing and which never will exist.
Right, its just really insignificant. Bringing it up in here isn't the gotcha that you or lyrch think it is either.
You're going to do the lawyer thing where because you didn't say it specifically you didn't say it at all. You responded to concerns about carbon emissions with this WHICH, any normal brain would obviously read that as you saying that peoples concerns about the environment aren't valid or concerning.