Humans have been playing games literally for thousands of years - there is a value in entertainment, especially with our busy lives of 21st century.
You can of course overdo it, turn it into an addiction and it can destroy your life - like many other things.
Crypto trading is as valuable as trading scraps of paper with a dollar sign scribbled on it - if it were done for fun or entertainment, then sure, whatever, but it's having major impact on our energy consumption and has to be curbed.
PS - also, a small side note - literally no gaming rig uses an "upwards of a thousands watts". Even fitted with the highest rated components currently available on the market(say a 12th gen i9 + RTX3090) you won't be using 1000W of power. Consoles use about 200-300W under full load, and that's a bigger gaming market than PC. And then the biggest gaming market is mobile - larger than PC and consoles combined, and the energy consumption there is tiny. So you're massively off base here.
>>Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
And I honestly think that anyone who thinks crypto will become "an alternative financial system" and not just a pyramid scheme is lying to themselves.
Considering the explosion in the gaming industry in recent years you may find that it outpaces crypto already, or is catching up very fast.
For tiny values of many.
There is no major cryptocurrency using anything other than PoW. Ethereum has plans to start moving to PoS in 2022, but isn't there yet.
And related to gaming: Bitcoin alone consumes more power than entire European countries - including all the gaming, smelting, heating, industry, finance, data centers etc in those countries. There is no chance in hell gaming alone, for the entire world, is consuming more power than even Bitcoin - not to mention comparing it to all crypto combined.
EU nations may be a poor comparison, as it has many tiny nations as members as well as a few big ones.
The first Google hit I got said Bitcoin uses 80 TWh/year which puts it around Belgium (9th in EU) for pure electricity, the second said Bitcoin was using about 177 TWh/year (bit more than Poland, 5th in EU, again just for electricity).
I don’t have exact figures for game consoles or power usage per console or gaming PCs, so I will do a Fermi estimate: 1 billion active gaming devices (PCs and all consoles combined), 200 W per device, each used for 3 hours per day. This is 219 TWh/year. As a Fermi estimate, take with a grain of salt.
(I don’t accept the general claim that BTC actually has real value; conversely I think most gaming does, including gambling although for gambling the value is much less than the cost, but that’s not the focus of this comment).
So, let's say 300 million devices, running 3h/day at 150W, that's closer to 50TWh/year, less than even your smaller estimate for Bitcoin.
But you do also have to include the power cost of displays when the game machine doesn’t have one built in, adding 10-120W.
And the older consoles didn’t all vanish into the ether when new models arrived; my brother still has an original Xbox 360, and not for lack of money to upgrade. So I expect many of its contemporaries to also contribute to the total number of gaming units, not just total sales of most recent Xbox + most recent PlayStation + most recent Nintendo console.
7 of the 10 largest chains use PoS.
Volume traded is admittedly an imperfect measure of activity, but its better than market cap.
And that’s not “fake activity” by any means. Both chains run essentially the same DeFi and NFT activity as Ethereum.
Who gets to decide that? You see value in entertainment derived from a gaming rig, a person in Argentina sees value in mining a unit of make-believe currency which they can then sell on a speculative market. Should we form a global committee to decide on which types of computation have value, and should therefore be allowed to execute?
ANYTHING can be used as money. The systems that we currently have in place have lots of big problems, but "we" decided to use them and that's why they are popular. We could also decide to use a cryptocurrency as money, and it would be equally valid, and it would become our "money" - that bit is fine and I'm not arguing with it.
What I am commenting on, and what I am calling bullshit, is the cold hard reality of crypto - there hasn't been a coin invented yet that is anything but a ponzi scheme. Everything from bitcoin to ETH to dogecoin is just a scam to make some people rich, even if it started with good intentions(and I believe Bitcoin really was started with the intention to become a currency).
The second this changes, and we have a cryptocurrency that is actually used as money and not a plaything, I'll happily stop complaining about it.
You might reply "you're just using a proxy of USD the original currency, its not new".
That's true my reply to that would be:
Having the USD be on chain allows very efficient lending. For eg. I can use a lending aggregator that is constantly polling many lending sources and moves my money to the best source of yield regularly. How would you do this with traditional banking?
I expect over time for the volatility to smooth out as more of the expectations are realised and we figure out a widely agreed fair price for most cryptos (for many this will be zero).
Chasing yield is a recipe for disaster.
100% agree, I hope my comment didn't paint it as if there is no risk. In terms of default, virtually all borrow lend dApps currently are overcollatoralized so if the borrower defaults, they are liquidated and I will be made whole.
> Chasing yield is a recipe for disaster.
Kind of a bizarre and baseless statement? Why should people not earn yield on their capital? We are all constantly losing purchasing power to inflation, it makes absolute sense to earn yield to negate this.
If you live somewhere where cryptocurrency gains are taxed as income, how do you handle the reporting of this at tax time? It seems like it would be tedious to keep track of every transaction across multiple defi platforms.
It's so country by country right now due to how early we are. Tax rules will be more clearly defined assuming Web3 and DeFi continue to be adopted over time.
I won't: we still have proof-of-work to get rid of (and generally, the unreasonable energy consumption and chip usage).
Now we need to nuke the Bitcoin farms. (Half serious: I wonder whether launching tactical nukes on those farms would generate less pollution in the long term than letting those farms be.)
> https://solana.com/news/solana-energy-usage-report-november-...
Remind me what did Wikileaks resort to using after it got banned from all payment networks?
About 25 % of energy expended today is to make people not freeze, which is the single biggest or second biggest energy consumer world wide. The other one is transporting stuff and people. The third one is making stuff (food, buildings etc. use a lot of energy).
All of those things have practical value. Humans need relaxation and entertainment in order to be productive, which gaming and sitcoms provide. (I'm not going to explain how smartphones have practical value because I assume that was included due to some sort of editing buffer mix up or similar while you were simultaneously writing something else while commenting here).
> Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
That can be done for orders of magnitude less energy. The high energy use of Bitcoin and similar is not due to its providing a financial system aspect. It is due to the particular implementation details of its ledger.
I don't follow your logic, could you elaborate? One could say that about other things subject to carbon tax. Like all goods and services, the price is set by how much people are will to pay for it.
"the price people are willing to pay for short-haul flights could just increase, and therefore the airline profits are unaffected." "the price people are willing to pay for aluminium could just increase, and therefore the smelters are unaffected."
They don't really make sense. Carbon taxing would change miner behaviour, because greener energy would be more attractive (by virtue of being cheaper, especially with carbon taxing and reduced fossil fuel subsidies).
But if it's still taxed proportionally to the generated emissions, does it matter how big the rewards are?
It ends at the last pyramid scheme.
These places have already got laws against pyramid schemes, so I’d start by asking a lawyer to explain the various existing laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramid_Scheme_Illegal_Ma...
Crypto isn't the first of this kind, nor will it be the last. But it does use obscene amounts of energy to make the scam work. And the energy requirements become greater year after year. It is not sustainable in our civilization.
Serious question, where does this line of thinking end? Gaming rigs use upwards of a thousand watts, no practical value in gaming. Watching sitcoms on a television has no practical value. Phones capable of doing things other than making calls have no practical value, but we charge them all the time.
Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
The idea that we should do less stuff and be miserable because climate change is fatalist and just silly. We should be building nuclear power plants at a drastic rate to meet supply.