Re:Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge
by tshaddox on Tuesday May 18, 2021 @12:31PM
(#27197123)
I don’t understand why you don’t find these “where do you draw the line?” inquiries extremely relevant to this conversation. It seems like everyone here has just assumed that Bitcoin is useless and therefore the externalities from its energy usage should be unacceptable. Personally I’m not a big fan of bitcoin’s energy usage either, but it strikes me as bizarre to recommend banning arbitrary things that use energy rather than, for example, addressing the externality problem directly.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge
by helmholtz on Tuesday May 18, 2021 @12:40PM
(#27197275)
I wouldn't say OP recommended banning anything 'arbitrary'. It was very relevant to the discussion to state that the ban should be on proof-of-work currencies.
Here's my issue. There is such a thing as too-late in environmental matters. Once it's too late, it's a fire that sustains itself. Therefore, acting quickly matters. Addressing the source directly is obviously the superior solution. But I just don't see it happening at a fast enough rate. I see nuclear power in the same way. Yes, it's a little bit of trading one problem for the next, but it's a very necessary stop gap to buy us time.