It blows my mind how well-known all the problems there are with crypto and yet it's become so huge
while solving virtually no problem other than avoiding laws about the movement of money and capital.
The Bitcoin network in particular uses more electricty than Argentina. Defenders will point out that it's majority renewable. That's intellectually dishonest because Bitcoin is simply chasing cheap power and hydro power is among the cheapest. Bitcoin miners will happily use coal if it's sufficiently cheap. Also, use of certain renewables comes at the expense of other people. In the Hudson Valley, miners have raised the electricty prices for other residents in those towns.
Bitcoins transactions consume an enormous amount of electricity.
Defenders will also claim we'll move to Proof of Stake ("PoS") over Proof of Waste but this too is a myth. For one, Bitcoin's massive computational and electricity waste is key to defending the network. I don't know what happens when we run out of coins to mine. Also, if it's as simple as that, why haven't we simply moved to PoS for everything?
PoS ultimately is a rich-gets-richer scenario is why. It's really no different to the Luna anchor stakers getting 20% returns at the expense of everyone else who comes along later.
And for all of this waste we get what? Transactions that can only be guaranteed if they're entirely contained within the network because as soon as you want to include something outside of that (eg converting crypto to or from cash) you've just added the same trust issue that is intrinsic to every traditional financial transaction.
And what fuels this continued mass delusion is the fabric of American beliefs that every American is just a temporarily embarassed millionaire [1].
[1]; https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-once-...
The Bitcoin network in particular uses more electricty than Argentina. Defenders will point out that it's majority renewable. That's intellectually dishonest because Bitcoin is simply chasing cheap power and hydro power is among the cheapest. Bitcoin miners will happily use coal if it's sufficiently cheap. Also, use of certain renewables comes at the expense of other people. In the Hudson Valley, miners have raised the electricty prices for other residents in those towns.
Bitcoins transactions consume an enormous amount of electricity.
Defenders will also claim we'll move to Proof of Stake ("PoS") over Proof of Waste but this too is a myth. For one, Bitcoin's massive computational and electricity waste is key to defending the network. I don't know what happens when we run out of coins to mine. Also, if it's as simple as that, why haven't we simply moved to PoS for everything?
PoS ultimately is a rich-gets-richer scenario is why. It's really no different to the Luna anchor stakers getting 20% returns at the expense of everyone else who comes along later.
And for all of this waste we get what? Transactions that can only be guaranteed if they're entirely contained within the network because as soon as you want to include something outside of that (eg converting crypto to or from cash) you've just added the same trust issue that is intrinsic to every traditional financial transaction.
And what fuels this continued mass delusion is the fabric of American beliefs that every American is just a temporarily embarassed millionaire [1].
[1]; https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-once-...