Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index
by pdpi on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:26AM
(#26090393)
The actual result of mining is defending the network against double-spending (and censorship, to a degree — though this is more fragile). Insofar as you believe that Bitcoin-the-currency is itself a social positive, the mining process has a positive effect. (But also a very meaningful cost, which leads us to a subtler question — is it a net positive?)
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index
by hakesdev on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:29AM
(#26090430)
this is a really dumb argument that is trotted out every 4 years. There's also already a FoldingCoin that's been around since 2014. https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/foldingcoin/
For PoW to work it must be a costly signal. If you introduce positive externalities of mining (such as Folding @ Home) the system isn't sustainable.
I think the main problem people have is the actual result of the mining is useless, say compared to using all those computers for MI or Folding @ Home.
I think a better solution would be to get rid of these random bytes and replace them with a Folding @ Home or similar solution, where the computing power you donate results in you getting X bitcoin. Things that are a positive on society, rather then a negative.
But then again that is me being judgmental on others, maybe people care a ton about that string of random alphanumeric characters.