pull down to refresh

I believe that bitcoin would be much better for the planet than a bank because overtime technology has advanced to ensure minimum use of energy
reply
The major takeaway from the report is that the United States banking industry is responsible for financing an estimated 1.968 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. For a relative size comparison, the banking industry would be the fifth-largest emitter if it were a country.
Bitcoin, which is often wrongly attacked as an environmental disaster, does not create money through credit creation and has a monetary cap of 21 million bitcoin. The network uses energy to secure the history of transactions (known as the blockchain). Even if we assume that the entire network operates on electricity derived 100% from coal power generators, the network’s carbon emissions would be roughly 6.62% of the banking industry emissions (see endnote for calculation).
Of course, in reality, the total carbon emissions from bitcoin mining operations are far less.
Bitcoin is a monetary network. It is not a network of banks with highly centralized power among the wealthy few. Instead, bitcoin operates like a stateless public utility. Anyone can participate in the network. Anyone can run a node and contribute to the code base.
The more we are open to the true nature of bitcoin as a neutral monetary public utility, the sooner we can divest from the current system and create an economy that includes the environment and a shared human prosperity in its calculations.
Bitcoin is for the people and the planet.
reply