• @deafboy
    link
    English
    210 months ago

    I never liked this kind of argument, because if bitcoin ever becomes truly mainstream, the similar ecosystem will grow around it in addition to the mining itself.

    We really should focus on the renewable energy sources rather than argue who burns how much and for what reason. There’s a price mechanism (albeit flawed) for that.

    • @O_i
      link
      English
      110 months ago

      I totally understand, I’m tired of having the conversation as well. In the video I posted earlier it sheds light on how renewable energy companies can be incentivised to add mining bitcoin to their process. Has a lot to do with modern tech and how energy is used/distributed.

      Example of a mining company working with the Navajo nation in the US adding solar panels.

      https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-mining-in-navajo-land-yields-jobs-revenues-while-revealing-economic-disparity-195141438.html

    • prole
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      No. If a crypto were adopted at that scale, it wouldn’t be proof-of-work, so there would be no “miners” and (comparatively) no energy consumption whatsoever.

      • @deafboy
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        There is no clear advantage of proof of stake cryptocurrencies compared to blockchain-less centralized databases. IMHO It’s either Bitcoin, or PayPal 2.0

        edit: But since people tend to be weird, maybe no advantage is needed…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        010 months ago

        If what you said was true, Bitcoin would already have given its place to any of the proof of stake coins.

        But it hasn’t because it won’t. Crypto people only care about becoming rich, so to them the technology behind doesn’t matter. And there is much more money to make using Bitcoin than the rest.