BITCOIN

Malthusian

Interesting question so I did some Googling. As far as I can tell, it is just as legal to hold a rally to teach kids that Bitcoin or slot machines are fun as it is to teach them that Jesus wants them for a sunbeam or that Karl Marx was right.
It is illegal to allow under-18s to gamble, but as far as I can tell there is no law to stop you teaching them that slot machines are fun.
Obviously, no traditional gambling company would overtly encourage kids to jump on the pokies when they are old enough, as it would be a PR calamity and probably put its licence at risk. There is nonetheless an ongoing problem with gambling companies apparently targeting kids with advertising.
Similarly, it has always been legal for kids to play games that mirror games of chance without the money element. Hence the controversy over lootboxes in computer games. When I was young someone bought me a toy roulette wheel. (Suitably enough, it was rigged - even as a pre-teen years away from being taught probability, I could tell that it landed on 28 black far too many times.)
Most of the big exchanges ban under 18s, but for KYC / contract law reasons. There is no law against kids owning assets, including high-risk speculative ones.
One of the top Google results was a bitcoin.com article explicitly teaching kids how to get around that and buy Bitcoin while they're underage. As one commenter underneath the article put it, "Of course..... And why not? There's [no such thing] as underage." Okaaaayyyyy...

Adyinvestment

 

I am all for a well rounded discussion about Bitcoin, but the above few posts belong in a comedy show 

We have "lured children",    "pretty sick stuff",   "pony grooming",   "toys and Mcdonalds cheeseburgers",   "I felt pretty queasy",   "slot machines",   "Karl Marx",   "pokies",   "loot boxes",   "computer games",   "toy roulette wheels"

Seriously, don't you think it is a little OTT?

If you really care about the  kids you better get campaigning about sweets/chocolate or something else a bit more harmful, and stop worrying about the kids petting the "cuddly bunnies" with Bitcoin stickers in the background.

  

uk1

Adyinvestment said:

 

I am all for a well rounded discussion about Bitcoin, but the above few posts belong in a comedy show 

We have "lured children",    "pretty sick stuff",   "pony grooming",   "toys and Mcdonalds cheeseburgers",   "I felt pretty queasy",   "slot machines",   "Karl Marx",   "pokies",   "loot boxes",   "computer games",   "toy roulette wheels"

Seriously, don't you think it is a little OTT?

If you really care about the  kids you better get campaigning about sweets/chocolate or something else a bit more harmful, and stop worrying about the kids petting the "cuddly bunnies" with Bitcoin stickers in the background.

  

“False equivalence” is the opposite to a “well rounded discussion” 🥸

Adyinvestment

uk1 said:

“False equivalence” is the opposite to a “well rounded discussion” 🥸

Darn it, I had to Google that!

Hexane

Currently watching "Cryptocurrency: Has the Bubble Burst?" on Channel 4. Ade Adepitan talks to experts and has a lot of deep insights. He says "wow" and  "wowwwwwwwwwwwww" a lot. Worth viewing on catch-up on All4 if that's your thing.

He gambled £500, mainly on Bitcoin and Ethereum, and managed only to be down around 32% after six weeks.

Zola.

https://news.bitcoin.com/landfill-gas-mitigation-firm-vespene-energy-gas-to-bitcoin-solutions/

But but but Bitcoin is so terrible for the environment and doesn't offer anything useful?

Frequentlyhere

Zola. said:

https://news.bitcoin.com/landfill-gas-mitigation-firm-vespene-energy-gas-to-bitcoin-solutions/

But but but Bitcoin is so terrible for the environment and doesn't offer anything useful?

So, just to clarify, this firm has found a source of energy (landfill methane) that could be used for lots of useful things, but is being used instead to mine bitcoin, is that right?
 
If so, how is that a good thing? As opposed to using that same methane to alleviate the energy pressures we have ongoing?

The thing is, surely any source of energy that is potent enough to support a meaningful amount of bitcoin mining could always be put instead to an activity with actual value?

Section62

Zola. said:

But but but Bitcoin is so terrible for the environment and doesn't offer anything useful?

Smoke and mirrors.

Better for the environment would be capturing the gas and feeding it into the mains gas supply, or using it for micro generation and feeding the power into the electricity grid.

This has been happening for decades already.  'Bitcoin' hasn't invented anything new.

If the argument is that these are remote off-grid locations and bitcoin operations at the site make use of energy it would be impractical to insert into the grid, then there are other processes requiring gas/electricity which could be operated on those sites instead.

And is there much benefit to the environment of building the infrastructure (including security) and having people travel to/from a remote site just to greenwash an energy intensive activity?

If Bitcoin is so great, people shouldn't need to come up with ideas like this to demonstrate it.

Zola.

It's amusing to watch the Bitcoin hate narrative change over the years. 

Firstly bitcoin is scorching the earth and must be stopped. Then millions are spent by energy companies to provide viable ways to greatly reduce emissions (from non bitcoin emissions also), but supposedly Bitcoin doesn't have a right to convert that waste and use that energy and it should be used for other things.... brilliant.

Section62

Zola. said:

It's amusing to watch the Bitcoin hate narrative change over the years. 

Firstly bitcoin is scorching the earth and must be stopped. Then millions are spent by energy companies to provide viable ways to greatly reduce emissions (from non bitcoin emissions also), but supposedly Bitcoin doesn't have a right to convert that waste and use that energy and it should be used for other things.... brilliant.

It isn't "hate" and you demean your argument by adopting that kind of language/approach.

Landfill methane capture and reuse is not new.  Nothing groundbreaking has been invented.  Using the potential energy source for activity 'x' prevents that energy being used for other things.

If activity 'x' is wasteful, it is still wasteful if it means other things can't use that energy.

It is really strange conceptually to believe 'Bitcoin' has rights - especially when the article references the investment as being made in dollars.  Maybe the dollars should get first dibs on the gas?