Jump to content

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, BrownBear said:

As the number of miners decrease, mining becomes easier - increasing profits and making the rising cost of energy negligible for large mining pools.

The law of unintended consequences would result the smaller miners seeking cheaper alternatives such as mining an alt coin where the profits are greater compared to the costs of mining - resulting possibly in a higher overall energy consumption despite the increased cost of energy. A bit like how taxing sugar increased beer consumption.

That and as a non-miner I don't want increased energy costs. Just ban BTC - XRP is all we need.

Ban altcoins and keep increasing the price of energy. People will choose alternative fuels, massive cities will become unsustainable and people will move to the countryside. Property prices will become more affordable and employers will have to increase at-home employment, or the concentration of employment will be spread throughout the countryside, just like the Mittelstand in Germany. 

BTC forces the cost of energy to increase, which solves climate change, property prices, and voter concentration problems. The miracle coin :sarcastic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RikkiTikki said:

My question is why are the environmentalist not pursuing POW like when it comes to other issues that leave a huge carbon footprint?  Is it due to a lack of understanding because this has been communicated over and over again and it seems not to be gaining much traction

The xrp community should take this up and alert Greenpeace etc. I wonder if these organisations already know this and since there isn't one company or organisation to hit at they aren't doing much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wandering_Dog said:

How easy it is to make any argument you want in economics, just depends how you spin it!

I've seen Bitcoin maximalists jump through more hoops than ...  in an effort to rationalize the energy usage.  :yes3:

Ultimately, it comes down to a simple observation; if there were no Bitcoin mining, there would be much less electrical output needed by the world, hence less carbon, because a percentage of all electrical usage will always be from fossil fuels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, strikerjax said:

I wonder if these organisations already know this and since there isn't one company or organisation to hit at they aren't doing much?

In the "early days," Bitcoin avoided this problem due to the fact that, even though it was measurable, it wasn't super-massive like it is today. 

Now it's almost impossible to ignore the electricity consumption; my guess is that it's on their radar.  

Parallel to Bitcoin's increasing usage, there's been widespread recognition that the melting of Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica could wipe out a LOT of coastal cities much sooner than anticipated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Hodor said:

BTC has already lost most of its value anyway;

This is a process known in many crypto communities as, "store of value".

The process is, first you put the value in, turn on your mining rig, spin 3 times clockwise, hop on 1 foot, kick the mining rig, then go look on Reddit to see how much value you have stored.

Anoher option for storing value would be buying inflation protected bonds, but you dont get to spin clockwise with bonds, so bitcoin has that going for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hodor said:

I've seen Bitcoin maximalists jump through more hoops than ...  in an effort to rationalize the energy usage.  :yes3:

Ultimately, it comes down to a simple observation; if there were no Bitcoin mining, there would be much less electrical output needed by the world, hence less carbon, because a percentage of all electrical usage will always be from fossil fuels. 

That's nonsense. Tankers dump tens of millions of pounds of fuel into the Gulf alone every year and no one cares. Governments block alternative energy investments throughout the US and no one cares. No one cares about the environment, it's not a part of our cost structure. You can make the same argument about energy waste almost any other sector. It's crypto propaganda. If anything, as I highlighted above, BTC forcing energy prices to rise would actually be a good thing for the environment, not that it will ever happen.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wandering_Dog said:

That's nonsense. Tankers dump tens of millions of pounds of fuel into the Gulf alone every year and no one cares. Governments block alternative energy investments throughout the US and no one cares. No one cares about the environment, it's not a part of our cost structure. You can make the same argument about energy waste almost any other sector. It's crypto propaganda. If anything, as I highlighted above, BTC forcing energy prices to rise would actually be a good thing for the environment, not that it will ever happen.   

Well said. Energy spent securing a public network now is not as  important as energy used for Christmas lights or watching TV shows... Lets all turn off our TVs, heatings and air conditioning to save the planet

Edited by AlvaroXRP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wandering_Dog said:

BTC forcing energy prices to rise would actually be a good thing for the environment, not that it will ever happen.   

I disagree - quite strongly I might add.  But repeating my points that are expressed in detail in my blog seems futile given your response here. 

Edited by Hodor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlvaroXRP said:

Energy spent securing a public network

Proof-of-work mining is not necessary to support a network.  I think by now I've made my stance clear in the blog and on this thread, so continuing to repeat points borders on futility. 

I'll agree to disagree with you - very strongly.  :victory:

Edited by Hodor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hodor said:

Proof-of-work mining is not necessary to support a network.  I think by now I've made my stance clear in the blog and on this thread, so continuing to repeat points borders on futility. 

I'll agree to disagree with you - very strongly.  :victory:

Repeatinh the same arguments in several places don't make them more true. And again, if you are so worried about the planet then don't turn on any electrical devices, don't ride any fuel powered vehicles, use recicled water only and plant more trees...

Edited by AlvaroXRP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hodor said:

I disagree - quite strongly I might add.  But repeating my points that are expressed in detail in my blog seems futile given your response here. 

Well, let's pinpoint what your argument is, because as I see it, you don't actually make an argument, it's mostly appeals to emotion: 

 

Quote

1) Proof-of-work mining is heading towards gobbling up 20% of the entire Earth's electrical grid and power production. 

2) In a rational world, this should be completely unacceptable.

3) XRP uses almost no energy. 

4) Therefore don't use BTC.

 

 

For 1 and 2, you actually mis-use the word "rational", applying the English language meaning of the word to what is an economic analysis, is it economically rational for some entity to use energy in such a way? Well, it is rational for a profit maximizing firm operating within legal boundaries to use any quantity of legal energy or produce any quantity of legal waste as a part of its productive process, when that firm generates profit from its activities.

This is the basis of the economic system in which you live. Extreme example: if a firm wanted to "we burn 20% of Earth's energy just for the LOLZ b!tches!" and people bought their products with a zealot's fervor, making the firm a massively successful company--then that is considered economically rational for the firm, maxing profit, and the consumers, maxing their utility. And this is the basis of what we consider a civilized world.

 

If we wanted to simplify what I think your argument is, with some extreme assumptions about energy use, what defines unproductive, and omit some much needed supporting premises, then:

 

@Hodor: Unproductive energy use is bad -> BTC energy use is unproductive -> Therefore, BTC is bad

 

And my reply is:

@Wandering_Dog: Unproductive energy use is bad -> if BTC leads to the increase in the price of energy -> then all unproductive energy use will decrease -> therefore BTC is good. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...