Crypto Dabble.

Scottex99

Haha, what a weird way to decide to come out of your position. But hopefully you got out in the green

GL

Dandytf

Scottex99 said:

Haha, what a weird way to decide to come out of your position. But hopefully you got out in the green

GL

I enjoy reading more and more countries saying firm No! to Crypto miners.

When it has reached the current status of using more Energy than UAE, then I've stopped.

Zola.

Dandytf said:

what an amazing thread, which I no longer hold any interest in.
I've read too many articles suggesting Crypto mining is using up ridiculous amounts of energy.

Today I've stopped my eth/ltc dabble via pay pal. 

thanks mser's

If you are offended by the energy usage in proof of work cryptocurrency, you should also stop using the internet, Netflix, Youtube etc..

Whether we like it or not, we need more energy usage to better humanity. 

Aegis

Zola. said:

Dandytf said:

what an amazing thread, which I no longer hold any interest in.
I've read too many articles suggesting Crypto mining is using up ridiculous amounts of energy.

Today I've stopped my eth/ltc dabble via pay pal. 

thanks mser's

If you are offended by the energy usage in proof of work cryptocurrency, you should also stop using the internet, Netflix, Youtube etc..

Whether we like it or not, we need more energy usage to better humanity. 

This completely misses the point.  Something like Netflix, YouTube, etc has tangible benefits to the energy usage, in that people can stream or watch videos to their hearts' contents.  Cryptocurrency is deliberately designed to be wasteful, and as far as I can tell offers nothing that traditional cash couldn't already do for the vast majority of people. 

If all it took was energy use to better humanity, you might have a point, but in actual fact most things are now designed to be as low-energy as possible precisely because the provision of all that energy has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere tends to be petrochemicals of some sort.

Zola.

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Dandytf said:

what an amazing thread, which I no longer hold any interest in.
I've read too many articles suggesting Crypto mining is using up ridiculous amounts of energy.

Today I've stopped my eth/ltc dabble via pay pal. 

thanks mser's

If you are offended by the energy usage in proof of work cryptocurrency, you should also stop using the internet, Netflix, Youtube etc..

Whether we like it or not, we need more energy usage to better humanity. 

This completely misses the point.  Something like Netflix, YouTube, etc has tangible benefits to the energy usage, in that people can stream or watch videos to their hearts' contents.  Cryptocurrency is deliberately designed to be wasteful, and as far as I can tell offers nothing that traditional cash couldn't already do for the vast majority of people. 

If all it took was energy use to better humanity, you might have a point, but in actual fact most things are now designed to be as low-energy as possible precisely because the provision of all that energy has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere tends to be petrochemicals of some sort.

I think watching all the episodes of the Kardashians on demand is a monumental waste of energy. Sadly millions of other people don't. 

The energy argument comes off as nothing more than virtue signalling by hypocrites frankly. 

Bitcoin has tangible benefits to those who need it, especially in developing nations, who have no access to bank accounts and need a way to digitally store value (as you well know, this has been discussed numerous times yet you still keep piping in with the same old arguments). 

Again as been said before, Bitcoin is becoming increasingly greener, miners are increasingly setting up all around the world where the energy is from stranded sources, geothermal etc. 

There is actually a discussion in US congress coming up in a few days about proof of work mining, may not be positive initially, but will be worth watching..  

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think

Those who have been tempted by cryptocurrencies might also want to think carefully about the environmental impact of the transactions they conduct. Vast amounts of computing power are needed for the so-called “proof of work” algorithm that is used to validate transactions on Blockchain's distributed ledger system. One recent study estimated that Bitcoin alone is responsible for around 22m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year – greater than all the carbon footprint of the whole of Jordan.

Video streaming tho...? Yeah that gets a pass cause we can't live without the Kardashians... right?

Watching online videos accounts for the biggest chunk of the world's internet traffic – 60% – and generates 300m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is roughly 1% of global emissions, according to French think tank, The Shift Project. This is because, as well as the power used by devices, energy is consumed by the servers and networks that distribute the content.

Aegis

Zola. said:

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Dandytf said:

what an amazing thread, which I no longer hold any interest in.
I've read too many articles suggesting Crypto mining is using up ridiculous amounts of energy.

Today I've stopped my eth/ltc dabble via pay pal. 

thanks mser's

If you are offended by the energy usage in proof of work cryptocurrency, you should also stop using the internet, Netflix, Youtube etc..

Whether we like it or not, we need more energy usage to better humanity. 

This completely misses the point.  Something like Netflix, YouTube, etc has tangible benefits to the energy usage, in that people can stream or watch videos to their hearts' contents.  Cryptocurrency is deliberately designed to be wasteful, and as far as I can tell offers nothing that traditional cash couldn't already do for the vast majority of people. 

If all it took was energy use to better humanity, you might have a point, but in actual fact most things are now designed to be as low-energy as possible precisely because the provision of all that energy has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere tends to be petrochemicals of some sort.

I think watching all the episodes of the Kardashians on demand is a monumental waste of energy. Sadly millions of other people don't. 

The energy argument comes off as nothing more than virtue signalling by hypocrites frankly. 

Bitcoin has tangible benefits to those who need it, especially in developing nations, who have no access to bank accounts and need a way to digitally store value (as you well know, this has been discussed numerous times yet you still keep piping in with the same old arguments). 

Again as been said before, Bitcoin is becoming increasingly greener, miners are increasingly setting up all around the world where the energy is from stranded sources, geothermal etc. 

There is actually a discussion in US congress coming up in a few days about proof of work mining, may not be positive initially, but will be worth watching..  

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think

Those who have been tempted by cryptocurrencies might also want to think carefully about the environmental impact of the transactions they conduct. Vast amounts of computing power are needed for the so-called “proof of work” algorithm that is used to validate transactions on Blockchain's distributed ledger system. One recent study estimated that Bitcoin alone is responsible for around 22m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year – greater than all the carbon footprint of the whole of Jordan.

Video streaming tho...? Yeah that gets a pass cause we can't live without the Kardashians... right?

Watching online videos accounts for the biggest chunk of the world's internet traffic – 60% – and generates 300m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is roughly 1% of global emissions, according to French think tank, The Shift Project. This is because, as well as the power used by devices, energy is consumed by the servers and networks that distribute the content.

It's not virtue signalling, it's a genuine problem with the concept as a whole.  We already have a working system of money that doesn't have huge energy costs per transaction, the idea of shifting to a system with incredible inefficiency built in by design is just irrational.  Yes, it might allow more people to access finances, but there are other avenues that could achieve this result without requiring a decentralised network, e.g. international savings accounts operated wholly via an app.  The issue is that this would be tricky to implement in a compliant fashion to help fight money laundering, but as a starting point it seems much better than introducing a wasteful network.

With regard to the renewable energy, it's irrelevant.  Energy is generated based on societal need as a whole, if bitcoin miners use a huge chunk of renewable energy for their projects, then that energy is no longer available for someone else to use.  In essence, the net requirement for energy increases if you look at the two cases, namely having bitcoin and not having bitcoin in existence.  The only caveat to this is where the miners privately pay for and build their own renewable energy generators, where you could argue that the energy they generate wouldn't have been available to anyone else.

Basically, energy wastage isn't a good thing.  If you can achieve results that work equally well using less energy, that's a far better solution.  I haven't even seen any compelling arguments for why bitcoin is even equal to the existing monetary supply.

Zola.

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Dandytf said:

what an amazing thread, which I no longer hold any interest in.
I've read too many articles suggesting Crypto mining is using up ridiculous amounts of energy.

Today I've stopped my eth/ltc dabble via pay pal. 

thanks mser's

If you are offended by the energy usage in proof of work cryptocurrency, you should also stop using the internet, Netflix, Youtube etc..

Whether we like it or not, we need more energy usage to better humanity. 

This completely misses the point.  Something like Netflix, YouTube, etc has tangible benefits to the energy usage, in that people can stream or watch videos to their hearts' contents.  Cryptocurrency is deliberately designed to be wasteful, and as far as I can tell offers nothing that traditional cash couldn't already do for the vast majority of people. 

If all it took was energy use to better humanity, you might have a point, but in actual fact most things are now designed to be as low-energy as possible precisely because the provision of all that energy has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere tends to be petrochemicals of some sort.

I think watching all the episodes of the Kardashians on demand is a monumental waste of energy. Sadly millions of other people don't. 

The energy argument comes off as nothing more than virtue signalling by hypocrites frankly. 

Bitcoin has tangible benefits to those who need it, especially in developing nations, who have no access to bank accounts and need a way to digitally store value (as you well know, this has been discussed numerous times yet you still keep piping in with the same old arguments). 

Again as been said before, Bitcoin is becoming increasingly greener, miners are increasingly setting up all around the world where the energy is from stranded sources, geothermal etc. 

There is actually a discussion in US congress coming up in a few days about proof of work mining, may not be positive initially, but will be worth watching..  

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think

Those who have been tempted by cryptocurrencies might also want to think carefully about the environmental impact of the transactions they conduct. Vast amounts of computing power are needed for the so-called “proof of work” algorithm that is used to validate transactions on Blockchain's distributed ledger system. One recent study estimated that Bitcoin alone is responsible for around 22m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year – greater than all the carbon footprint of the whole of Jordan.

Video streaming tho...? Yeah that gets a pass cause we can't live without the Kardashians... right?

Watching online videos accounts for the biggest chunk of the world's internet traffic – 60% – and generates 300m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is roughly 1% of global emissions, according to French think tank, The Shift Project. This is because, as well as the power used by devices, energy is consumed by the servers and networks that distribute the content.

It's not virtue signalling, it's a genuine problem with the concept as a whole.  We already have a working system of money that doesn't have huge energy costs per transaction, the idea of shifting to a system with incredible inefficiency built in by design is just irrational.  Yes, it might allow more people to access finances, but there are other avenues that could achieve this result without requiring a decentralised network, e.g. international savings accounts operated wholly via an app.  The issue is that this would be tricky to implement in a compliant fashion to help fight money laundering, but as a starting point it seems much better than introducing a wasteful network.

With regard to the renewable energy, it's irrelevant.  Energy is generated based on societal need as a whole, if bitcoin miners use a huge chunk of renewable energy for their projects, then that energy is no longer available for someone else to use.  In essence, the net requirement for energy increases if you look at the two cases, namely having bitcoin and not having bitcoin in existence.  The only caveat to this is where the miners privately pay for and build their own renewable energy generators, where you could argue that the energy they generate wouldn't have been available to anyone else.

Basically, energy wastage isn't a good thing.  If you can achieve results that work equally well using less energy, that's a far better solution.  I haven't even seen any compelling arguments for why bitcoin is even equal to the existing monetary supply.

It is certainly not irrelevant . Texas is becoming one of the largest Bitcoin mining states in the USA. Why? Flared gas. 

What is flared Gas? Well, it's simply raw energy that is flaring into the atmosphere..... whilst oil and gas is needed, it cannot be stopped,  and this raw energy cannot be sent along transmission lines for use by anyone. It can be positively consumed at the source though, hence Bitcoin mining... 

Flared gas alone in Texas could power nearly a third of the total Bitcoin network, and where miners are rapidly signing power purchase contract agreements to exploit the state's frequent negative energy costs.

https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/blogs/digital-assets/matthew-sigel-powering-bitcoin-miners-with-stranded-carbon/

Scottex99

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Dandytf said:

what an amazing thread, which I no longer hold any interest in.
I've read too many articles suggesting Crypto mining is using up ridiculous amounts of energy.

Today I've stopped my eth/ltc dabble via pay pal. 

thanks mser's

If you are offended by the energy usage in proof of work cryptocurrency, you should also stop using the internet, Netflix, Youtube etc..

Whether we like it or not, we need more energy usage to better humanity. 

This completely misses the point.  Something like Netflix, YouTube, etc has tangible benefits to the energy usage, in that people can stream or watch videos to their hearts' contents.  Cryptocurrency is deliberately designed to be wasteful, and as far as I can tell offers nothing that traditional cash couldn't already do for the vast majority of people. 

If all it took was energy use to better humanity, you might have a point, but in actual fact most things are now designed to be as low-energy as possible precisely because the provision of all that energy has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere tends to be petrochemicals of some sort.

I think watching all the episodes of the Kardashians on demand is a monumental waste of energy. Sadly millions of other people don't. 

The energy argument comes off as nothing more than virtue signalling by hypocrites frankly. 

Bitcoin has tangible benefits to those who need it, especially in developing nations, who have no access to bank accounts and need a way to digitally store value (as you well know, this has been discussed numerous times yet you still keep piping in with the same old arguments). 

Again as been said before, Bitcoin is becoming increasingly greener, miners are increasingly setting up all around the world where the energy is from stranded sources, geothermal etc. 

There is actually a discussion in US congress coming up in a few days about proof of work mining, may not be positive initially, but will be worth watching..  

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think

Those who have been tempted by cryptocurrencies might also want to think carefully about the environmental impact of the transactions they conduct. Vast amounts of computing power are needed for the so-called “proof of work” algorithm that is used to validate transactions on Blockchain's distributed ledger system. One recent study estimated that Bitcoin alone is responsible for around 22m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year – greater than all the carbon footprint of the whole of Jordan.

Video streaming tho...? Yeah that gets a pass cause we can't live without the Kardashians... right?

Watching online videos accounts for the biggest chunk of the world's internet traffic – 60% – and generates 300m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is roughly 1% of global emissions, according to French think tank, The Shift Project. This is because, as well as the power used by devices, energy is consumed by the servers and networks that distribute the content.

It's not virtue signalling, it's a genuine problem with the concept as a whole.  We already have a working system of money that doesn't have huge energy costs per transaction, the idea of shifting to a system with incredible inefficiency built in by design is just irrational.  Yes, it might allow more people to access finances, but there are other avenues that could achieve this result without requiring a decentralised network, e.g. international savings accounts operated wholly via an app.  The issue is that this would be tricky to implement in a compliant fashion to help fight money laundering, but as a starting point it seems much better than introducing a wasteful network.

With regard to the renewable energy, it's irrelevant.  Energy is generated based on societal need as a whole, if bitcoin miners use a huge chunk of renewable energy for their projects, then that energy is no longer available for someone else to use.  In essence, the net requirement for energy increases if you look at the two cases, namely having bitcoin and not having bitcoin in existence.  The only caveat to this is where the miners privately pay for and build their own renewable energy generators, where you could argue that the energy they generate wouldn't have been available to anyone else.

Basically, energy wastage isn't a good thing.  If you can achieve results that work equally well using less energy, that's a far better solution.  I haven't even seen any compelling arguments for why bitcoin is even equal to the existing monetary supply.

The arguments have been made here 50 times already, just go and look.

Why do you think the people at Ripple and other crypto projects all came from yesterday PayPal and other such firms? Because people had been trying crack decentralised e-money since the 90s and they couldn’t.

Satoshi did and his way was POW. He probably wasn’t expecting it to grow the way it has but we’re here now. ETH is POW but planning to change and LTC might be? 99% of the rest are POS and don’t require mining and don’t contribute to this “outrageous wasted energy”

Aegis

Zola. said:

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Dandytf said:

what an amazing thread, which I no longer hold any interest in.
I've read too many articles suggesting Crypto mining is using up ridiculous amounts of energy.

Today I've stopped my eth/ltc dabble via pay pal. 

thanks mser's

If you are offended by the energy usage in proof of work cryptocurrency, you should also stop using the internet, Netflix, Youtube etc..

Whether we like it or not, we need more energy usage to better humanity. 

This completely misses the point.  Something like Netflix, YouTube, etc has tangible benefits to the energy usage, in that people can stream or watch videos to their hearts' contents.  Cryptocurrency is deliberately designed to be wasteful, and as far as I can tell offers nothing that traditional cash couldn't already do for the vast majority of people. 

If all it took was energy use to better humanity, you might have a point, but in actual fact most things are now designed to be as low-energy as possible precisely because the provision of all that energy has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere tends to be petrochemicals of some sort.

I think watching all the episodes of the Kardashians on demand is a monumental waste of energy. Sadly millions of other people don't. 

The energy argument comes off as nothing more than virtue signalling by hypocrites frankly. 

Bitcoin has tangible benefits to those who need it, especially in developing nations, who have no access to bank accounts and need a way to digitally store value (as you well know, this has been discussed numerous times yet you still keep piping in with the same old arguments). 

Again as been said before, Bitcoin is becoming increasingly greener, miners are increasingly setting up all around the world where the energy is from stranded sources, geothermal etc. 

There is actually a discussion in US congress coming up in a few days about proof of work mining, may not be positive initially, but will be worth watching..  

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think

Those who have been tempted by cryptocurrencies might also want to think carefully about the environmental impact of the transactions they conduct. Vast amounts of computing power are needed for the so-called “proof of work” algorithm that is used to validate transactions on Blockchain's distributed ledger system. One recent study estimated that Bitcoin alone is responsible for around 22m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year – greater than all the carbon footprint of the whole of Jordan.

Video streaming tho...? Yeah that gets a pass cause we can't live without the Kardashians... right?

Watching online videos accounts for the biggest chunk of the world's internet traffic – 60% – and generates 300m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is roughly 1% of global emissions, according to French think tank, The Shift Project. This is because, as well as the power used by devices, energy is consumed by the servers and networks that distribute the content.

It's not virtue signalling, it's a genuine problem with the concept as a whole.  We already have a working system of money that doesn't have huge energy costs per transaction, the idea of shifting to a system with incredible inefficiency built in by design is just irrational.  Yes, it might allow more people to access finances, but there are other avenues that could achieve this result without requiring a decentralised network, e.g. international savings accounts operated wholly via an app.  The issue is that this would be tricky to implement in a compliant fashion to help fight money laundering, but as a starting point it seems much better than introducing a wasteful network.

With regard to the renewable energy, it's irrelevant.  Energy is generated based on societal need as a whole, if bitcoin miners use a huge chunk of renewable energy for their projects, then that energy is no longer available for someone else to use.  In essence, the net requirement for energy increases if you look at the two cases, namely having bitcoin and not having bitcoin in existence.  The only caveat to this is where the miners privately pay for and build their own renewable energy generators, where you could argue that the energy they generate wouldn't have been available to anyone else.

Basically, energy wastage isn't a good thing.  If you can achieve results that work equally well using less energy, that's a far better solution.  I haven't even seen any compelling arguments for why bitcoin is even equal to the existing monetary supply.

It is certainly not irrelevant . Texas is becoming one of the largest Bitcoin mining states in the USA. Why? Flared gas. 

What is flared Gas? Well, it's simply raw energy that is flaring into the atmosphere..... whilst oil and gas is needed, it cannot be stopped,  and this raw energy cannot be sent along transmission lines for use by anyone. It can be positively consumed at the source though, hence Bitcoin mining... 

Flared gas alone in Texas could power nearly a third of the total Bitcoin network, and where miners are rapidly signing power purchase contract agreements to exploit the state's frequent negative energy costs.

https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/blogs/digital-assets/matthew-sigel-powering-bitcoin-miners-with-stranded-carbon/

From a power generation perspective, if it can be used to mine bitcoin it can be used to store energy using a water battery or similar.  The idea that this energy can only be used to mine bitcoin just doesn't make any sense at all.  I'm all for making gas companies be more efficient, but this definitely isn't the (or even A) solution.

Aegis

Scottex99 said:

The arguments have been made here 50 times already, just go and look.

Why do you think the people at Ripple and other crypto projects all came from yesterday PayPal and other such firms? Because people had been trying crack decentralised e-money since the 90s and they couldn’t.

Satoshi did and his way was POW. He probably wasn’t expecting it to grow the way it has but we’re here now. ETH is POW but planning to change and LTC might be? 99% of the rest are POS and don’t require mining and don’t contribute to this “outrageous wasted energy”

Then those aren't the target of this criticism.  The issue continues to be that bitcoin is the dominant cryptocurrency, and it also wastes a huge amount of energy.  If we want to discuss other crypto-assets, that's fine, but it certainly doesn't change the fact that bitcoin is incredibly wasteful by design.