Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index
by sharpneli on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @11:13AM
(#26091068)
Naturally. While POS cryptos share many other bad sides with Bitcoin at least they don't ruin the planet so they're far far better.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index
by fastball on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @11:30AM
(#26091280)
POW only ruins the planet if you're using non-renewables / non-nuclear. It's not intrinsic.
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index
by patrickthebold on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @11:45AM
(#26091509)
quibble on "you're". It's a shared planet, so it gets ruined if enough mining is done on non-renewables. Most people complaining aren't mining at all.
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index
by fastball on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @11:55AM
(#26091672)
Was this a useful comment? "You're" is just a stand-in for "people are". The second person is a fairly common way to structure such a sentence.
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index
by kqr on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @01:15PM
(#26092781)
Sure, you can argue that nuclear (or whatever) is a better way to produce energy than most/all others currently known, but that's a very low bar to clear.
There are more and less sucky ways to produce energy, but let's be clear: all of them suck to some degree. There is no type of energy production where the mere act of producing that energy is a net positive.
Then the argument turns to whether or not the gains from proof of wasted energy-type systems outweigh the drawbacks of producing the required energy -- even if that energy is produced in the least sucky way. I'm firmly in the no camp.