3 sats \ 4 replies \ @jeff 12 Jan 2022 \ on: Daily discussion thread
I choose vent.
The Wikipedia poll bothers me quite a bit. I posted a desperate idea on stacker news last night. Didn't get any upvotes. It was probably dumb or it wasn't the right forum.
I don't know what to do, but I feel like wanting bitcoin to succeed and wanting global warming to stop is in conflict...so I'm forced to choose a camp.
write
preview
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 12 Jan 2022
You've got some upvotes now.
There are many bitcoiners who agree with you on GW so you should at least know you aren't alone.
The best way I've found to think about bitcoin's energy usage is on a relative basis to other things that use energy. That wikipedia RFC states McDonald's toy production consumes more energy than bitcoin and clearly bitcoin is a less frivolous use of energy. Another energy stat is clothing dryers in the US alone consumer more energy than bitcoin.
imho the camp you have to choose isn't between bitcoin and the environment. It's between whether consuming energy for human flourishing is worth it or not.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @CheezeGrater 12 Jan 2022 freebie
It's not as one-sided as "Bitcoin is bad because it uses a lot of energy".
The legacy financial system is incredibly inefficient, if having to run Bitcoin alongside it for a while allows us to transition away from it eventually, then I'd say that's worth it in the long run.
Also, take a look at this: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-mining-drives-clean-energy
and this (regarding the fiat financial system): https://medium.com/galoymoney/lightning-as-a-retail-payment-system-part-1-7463c46342ef
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nout 13 Jan 2022
Even if wiki stops accepting it, they may start accepting it later again. This is just one small battle...
In argument like this it's useful to realize that you are actually not fighting the people that are the most against the idea, but rather you are talking with reason to people that are in between and are willing to learn. It's worth adjusting the tone and arguments for that.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jeff 13 Jan 2022
It's symbolic. And a data point. It's like "The environmentalists are prepared to shoot themselves in the foot to stop bitcoin".
reply