/townhall/ - Townhall

crypto is basically a pyramid scheme anyway so fuck it.

>>9317
I think true to the degree users expect to put in $1 and get $2's out.  When the pool of those buying in runs out, crash is inevitable.  We will see a lot of that, I think.

While that's sorta a different question, it relates in that the energy that goes to mining is a function of profit, which is a function of BTC price.  So, an answer to whether Bitcoin will be anything but awful for the environment, could be, "Yes, when it crashes back into obscurity."

>>9315
I'd say so, by simple virtue of not being tied to nations that are inclined to simply print away their problems or risk their value by their instability.

It's a better investment than the USD

>>9317
So is the USD ever since it was no longer backed by gold.

>>9320
I realize I worded the question in a leading way, but so be it.

So you're saying Bitcoin's going to be OK for the environment because of the supply limits on Bitcoins.  I think something got switched somewhere, or at least I don't follow.

>>9328
I'm saying bitcoin is going to be better than the USD, by virtue of not being controlled by the state with a vested interest in simply printing money to pay for its debts.

I have no idea why currency would influence the environment at all, honestly.
I assumed it wasn't the literal 'environment', as in global warming and such, but rather the more conceptual 'environment' of economics or society perhaps.

I don't see why bitcoin would be worse than printed money, considering you have a tangible physical object that requires immense resources to produce and ship, compared to a string of code. Seems like bitcoin again wins out.

>>9329
Different user, but i think environment is being used literally here. Dollars floating around don't take constant, multiple computers running, using lots of electricity, to maintain. This becomes a larger issue if bitcoin becomes the standard, as you will need more and more of them, and corporations will jist start running warehouses full of PCs whose sole purpose is to mine bitcoin. Energy production has always had environmental consequences, and, as it stands now, bitcoin promises to be an unprecedented energy sink.

I doubt Bitcoin will ever be motivated to make the change, but proof of stake is a thing that doesn't rely on hashing for mining.

>>9329
I should have written something to indicate the concern was burning fuel.

>I don't see why bitcoin would be worse than printed money, considering you have a tangible physical object that requires immense resources to produce and ship, compared to a string of code. Seems like bitcoin again wins out.

You are correct that producing physical objects requires energy and materials, that often come with changes in the environment, so certainly making coins or bills has a cost.  Bitcoin runs on computers connected to the internet, and all cloud services require electrical power to run.  Of course the financial systems that do transactions for dollars are also mainly computers.

The concern centering on Bitcoin has involved the founder's choice of how to reward Bitcoin miners.  Miners are those doing the work of putting transactions in the blockchain -- the transaction leger.  Anyway, the miner that solves a puzzle first wins a reward, and Bitcoin miners use a great deal of energy just for solving the puzzle.