Topic: [2020-01-28] Your Bitcoin Should Be Seized to Pay for Climate Reparations (Read 720 times)

Part of me doesn't want to believe this person isn't so stupid but at the same time I know so many people are this stupid.

I believe that environmental protection deserves more attention than mining

A constitutional, representative republic is much preferred where the wolves are not legally allowed to vote to have the sheep for dinner even if it is 999 wolves and 1 sheep.   The US Founders, Alexis de Tocqueville and many other people have recognized why democracy is a bad idea, and anyone who has read history should understand it.  It is one reason why the US has the electoral college among other things.  It is another reason why the sheep in the US are allowed to be armed.  So the power-hungry wolves can't vote the sheep into slavery.  After all, the Democrat slave owners in the old Southern US States were a democracy and I doubt anyone with any sense would argue that the slaves did not deserve protection.


Check out Federalist 51 for example:
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-51/

Well ... I'm not going to  argue with that either. When I say "impossible", I mean that the chances of that happening are extremely low, but I completely agree that they are > 0%.


Yeah, right. But nothing better than democracy has been invented yet. Humanity has tried many times, in different parts of the world, to succeed in this endeavor, but all those experiments have failed badly.

Well.. I am glad that at least some of the users are agreeing with what I said. Democracy is practical only when the majority of the population is educated and hard working (Japan is an example). But in countries where the vast majority are lazy and don't want to do any work, democracy doesn't work (especially in third world nations such as Venezuela). The people there want to live on government freebies and don't want to do any productive activity. If the country is very rich in natural resources (Saudi Arabia for example), this model may be sustainable. People will elect governments which promise them freebies and in the end the economy will be destroyed.

Democracy is a tyranny of the majority and hence should not be the goal of anyone concerned with liberty. I was in Miami at the time and had friends from Venezuela who used to come and visit.  They thought no one would vote themselves into slavery and destruction.  They were wrong.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner as someone once said.

All these social movements does need a culprit who does not have a face and if they fight against the big corporate they will be shut down instantly and so is the reason they are fighting against a global peer network so that no one will voice against their tune as it is run by nerds and techies who are not politically involved and so is the reason they found the bitcoin space as an easy target.

Well.. I am not going to argue. I agree that Cyprus can't be equated to nations such as Germany, France or even the United Kingdom. But still, Cyprus was part of the European Union and the haircut was done under the orders from the EU. And I agree with the second part as well. What happened in 2012-13 was not a typical event.

All that said, my point was that "expropriation of the funds which were legally earned is impossible in the present-day Western world" may not be 100% true. In extremely rare scenarios, it may happen. Cyprus may not be part of the Western World. But what about other countries which are facing debt managing crisis now, such as Italy and Spain? I know that the chances are extremely low. But they are > 0%.

Firstly, if you ask me, I don't think Cyprus can be called a typical Western country, as well as some other countries which currently belong to the EU, such as Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and some others. People in those countries are striving to live the Western way, but the governments there are so corrupt that it can take another 20 years before the capitalist economic model starts working there.  Secondly, you are talking about the 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis, not a typical event by itself.

Yet, in my opinion, even there, in Cyprus, even during a crisis, the confiscation of holdings of everyone who works with Bitcoin, proposed by Eleanor Saitta, would never be approved by the government.

Seriously? After all the examples we had during the recent years? What is your opinion about the 47.5% haircut on savings bank deposits in Cyprus, which was implemented in 2013? I am not that knowledgeable about world geography. But I guess the Republic of Cyprus is located within the "Western World". Please correct me in case I am wrong.


Know what? In democracy it is the population and organized voting power that matters. I know what happened in Venezuela, because I was following the politics in that country even before Hugo Chavez became president. A majority of the people were living in shanties and slums when Chavez contested the presidential elections. He promised them free healthcare, education and a shitload of subsidies. And he won. During the initial years, everything went well (because the crude oil price was ~120 USD per barrel). But once the crude prices dropped, the model became unsustainable and the economy collapsed.

You are right. The lure of "free" stuff is extremely strong.  The people voting for them don't seem to realize that nothing is free and they are selling themselves and their progeny to these people, and trading their liberty and everyone's liberty in return for a few pieces of silver.  Once it is done it is extremely difficult to go back to freedom. You may be able to vote yourself into the slavery of socialism, but you can only fight your way out.

Look at Venezuela.  The richest country in South America 25 years ago with a ton of oil riches. They elected a socialist who promised "free" stuff to the people and promised to "equalize" incomes and wealth. He succeeded, he just equalized them down to a dollar or two per month.

People who think it can't happen somewhere are naive.  A power hungry group can seize power and eviscerate the constitutional protections over a short (or long) period of time. The left can play a long game, look at how FDR in the US undermined the constitution in order to advance his power and how leftist presidents since then have built upon that.

A Sanders with a Congress of like mind could easily take it to the extreme where there would be no return.  The courts would be of little use, look at how FDR threatened to pack the US Supreme Court and then, suddenly, got his way on the issues of the day.

If you think that if Bernie Sanders won the election the United States might become anything similar to the Soviet Union or Mao's China, you are terribly wrong, my friend. It's a common mistake of people from democratic countries to think that their rulers are sometimes similar to those of communist dictatorships. I'm not idealizing those presidents. They might want to be like communist dictators. But the thing that the Western political system will never allow them to.

Back to the topic though. An expropriation of the funds which were legally earned is impossible in the present-day Western world.

Don't think that it will never happen in democratic countries such as United States or the European Union. The Social Democrats of the west are moving more towards the radical left. I can give you numerous examples. The first one that comes to my mind is Bernie Sanders of the United States. He is having a good chance to win the Democrat nominations this year. Jeremy Corbyn of the United Kingdom is another example. I would rate him a step above Sanders as far as radicalism is concerned. And finally, we have Justin Trudeau of Canada, although at first glance he would look like a moderate left-wing politician.

She is a moron.  If she had any understanding of how BTC benefits  the global warming resistance she would not have posted  this at all.

 BTC can be used as a tool to create large solar power arrays.
She should say all USA states and all world governments should follow  New Jersey's solar power laws.
What this would do is allow the use of BTC mining to create demand which in turn allows for the creation of large solar arrays.

The  primary asset created is not the mining gear or the mining farms or even the crypto coins.  It would be the large solar arrays.


When I read stuff like she writes I know she is in part destroying the world by intent-ally spreading the wrong info on BTC.

BTC is the worlds greatest opportunity to increase solar arrays by a factor or 100x  and morons like her simply speak wrong info.

No hope as long as people  drink her kool-aid.

I've been thinking on this topic for some time, and here's what I've come up with. If the whole world was like the Soviet Union or Mao's China, these propositions/dreams of such a seizure could be translated into action. But in the democratic countries there's simply no chance for that course of action. Sorry, Eleanor Saitta. Go to North Korea, take your ideas with you, and maybe try your luck there.

^^^^ LOL.. try explaining this to today's youth. A large majority of them live in the left-wing dream paradise and never think about getting a job that pays well. I have seen a lot of these youngsters going for subjects such as Medieval history and gender studies. Now I don't have anything against these subjects. But the problem is that there are not enough jobs available in these niche fields to accommodate such huge number of students who are graduating out every year. So obviously, many of these losers will be left jobless once they finish their courses.

So what they will do next? They will brand themselves as activists and get associated to some tree hugging group. They will starge protests and demonstrations whenever a proposal for a major infrastructural project comes up. And in the end, we get people such as Eleanor Saitta.

I think a lot of the activity is just so that they can try to earn bitcoins with the spammy sig campaigns.  I am happy to donate to things I care about, but not to the nonsense "global poverty" BS.  People need to vote for freedom not authoritarianism (socialism, fascism, communism etc) if they want to get out of poverty.  Property rights, freedom, education and the rule of law will do more to bring people out of poverty than people donating.  

I started mining etc in July 2010. At any time anyone was free to involved in bitcoin, mining, developing, buying etc between Jan 2009 and today.  Everything is about choices though.  You could spend your money (for example) on netflix or spend it buying bitcoin in 2011, 2012, 2013 etc.  Likewise, you can spend your time watching netflix or learning programming or anything with regard to bitcoin or anything else.   You can play fortnite or you can learn something worthwhile, start a business or do something like that.   Don't later complain later when you missed an opportunity because you chose to watch TV, go out drinking, partying, playing video games or anything else that takes you away from spending at least some time doing something productive.  It doesn't have to be exclusively something productive, but don't complain later if you chose something else.

Just like people who complain about "the rich".  In most "1st world" countries, parents could easily save 1000 euros or dollars for a newborn - 84 per month in one year.  Cancel cable and netflix for a year and spend the time reading to your child.  Don't buy coffee at Starbucks and you could save a 3000 or 4000 that first year.  If you do that 1000 or 4000 and give it and invest it for the child, by the time they are retired, they'll have more than 1 million (or 4 million).  Do it for a few more years, and it will grow even more. If instead of that, teenagers take the money for their phone and travel expenses (e.g. petrol/gasoline) and invest it from 13 to 18 they'll likewise have a few million by retirement even if they never invest anything again.

It is about choices though:  instant gratification or understanding math and the power of compounding and acting on it.  People make their choices and then they pay the price later or reap the rewards later.  Don't expect people who are paying attention making smart choices to pay for your poor choices.

These idiots were hiding in their caves when the Bitcoin exchange rates were hovering around $5 per coin in 2012. All of them suddenly became active once the prices reached four digits. Even here in Bitcointalk, there are multiple threads requesting members to donate their Bitcoins to alleviate global poverty and all that shit. Those who became rich from Bitcoin are not liable to do anything to alleviate global poverty or to contribute to anti-climate change measures. We became rich because we took the risk in 2012 and 2013, when Bitcoin was relatively unknown. All these people who want others to donate their money are doing so because of jealousy.

Lawmakers' views on cryptocurrencies being bad for the environment shows us just how bad they want to take more and more money out from the industry. They have been using this reason for at least 3 years now and they always completely ignore other areas that are damaging out mother nature more, it just shows how bad they want more piece of the pie or how badly they just want to get rid of it all. @OP you are right to say that if they want to be a good environmentalist they must not exempt any contributors to pollution and must also pay for the damages they have done, but the thing is here we are also be the one who will be burdened ones these  oil companies and factories will be paying climate reparations.

Wow this is absurd.  I have heard a lot of crazy connections with blaming bitcoin but this one takes the cake.  Why should bitcoin holders pay for climate reparations?

I don't agree. Let them prove specifically my involvement in this before I pay someone.

What a ridiculous thing, the banks have many branches and in all bank branches they have air conditioning. Mining companies pay for the electricity that they consume, they are customers with rights just like anyone else. I don't see how this is going to be wrong, it is up to the electricity companies to create conditions to supply electricity from environmentally friendly sources and this is also a task of governments

Yes, it's probable (as it is for the rest of us, btw). We are living in a very fast changing world today, and we can't imagine what new technology can humanity come up with in 10 years.

In order to release the tension that is building up in this thread, I want to remind you guys about the following part from Silicon Valley series:


I think we can hope, and not completely unreasonably, that something similar will happen in the nearest future, and the "Bitcoin energy consumption problem" will vanish for good.

The last time I checked, cryptocurrency mining was consuming less than 1% of the total electricity generated every year. Even if we consider all of that electricity is generated from thermal power plants, the damage to the environment is much lower than that caused by the room heating systems in various nations. So is Elianor Saitta going to ask the authorities to confiscate all the room heaters, air conditioners, dishwashers.etc? Knowing how lunatic these environmentalists can be, I won't be surprised even if she asks the government to imprison everyone who uses electricity.

Some quick back of the envelop analysis from your stats.

It takes 4 acre of land to produce 1MW using solar generators.
In order to produce 10GW we need 40000 acre land (just 62.5 square miles). Multiply it by 4 to account for bad weather and night time offline generators.
The is hardly anything considerable, especially in sun rich countries like Australia, India, and several others in Africa where land is cheap and lots of barren properties are available to be  scooped up / leased for cheap.  
Bitcoin network can entirely be supported with renewables, if need be, for a considerable amount of time in to the future.

First, this!
I lived in a socialist country until the '90 and I know what the toxic idea of someone telling people that their property is better used by the state brings!
Don't want to go there anytime soon, I've had my portion of hell, thank you!

Now, on to a bit of a misunderstanding (or at least I think so)


I never disagreed with this.
To explain the situation better, let me give you an example.

I own a car, I love to drive my car to work, shopping, almost everything. But I know that if we ever reach the percentage of personal car ownership as the US, we (my town with me included) we're f&**&. Because there is no way in hell our five-century old city will be able to take that traffic.
At the same time, I don't advocate for a congestion tax or for any other stupid thing like that, but I know that there is an increase in people driving cars around here I will spend not 30 minutes but 3 hours in queues.
Because it's obvious congestion will happen, right?
Do I have a solution for it...no, all I can do is wait and pray it won't happen.
Is this making me a car hater or some bicycle lover? I can't even ride one!!!

The same with miners, I am not for any kind of limiters imposed on mining ( one of my fears is that miners getting bankrupt might lead to some people like a fake satoshi being able to buy gear at scrap metal price, and you know what that would bring).

But, as we are right now, it is inevitable that something will happen.
Denying that this will not be a problem in the future because it's not a problem right now is never a good idea.
It's also probable that I'm wrong and in 10 years while I visit this forum I will facepalm myself thousands for saying these. Time will tell.

----

Oh, and back on the subject.
This girl is not an environmentalist nor does she care for it.
Environmentalists care first about what they can do for the environment.
The ones that are going first after other's people money are socialist, a different breed altogether, same like orcs descending from elves.

okay, that seems fair enough

but your premise is still based upon telling other people they're using their property in the "wrong" way, and your argument seems to be: wrong because other people have any reason to say it too ("I don't think miners use too much electricity, but my neighbors do..."


sorry, but you're still equally wrong for equally unethical reasons. the miners paid to consume that electricity, and it's none of your business or anyone else's.

if we agree that any arbitrary reasoning of anyone else is sufficient to override other people's peaceful use of their property, it should be pretty obvious that the consequences of that is constant appropriation and re-appropriation, then huge conflicts.


It should be obvious to you too, please think before you suggest endlessly destructive principles as the basis for solving a non-problem.

I don't give a damn about what the premise is nor I give a damn about how much coal is burned or how many pink unicorns are enslaved to produce that energy.
What I debate is that what looks like being a no problem today, tomorrow might end up as a huge one and leaving the whole environment debate aside, we will have different problems as I explained before.

I'm not one of those eco nazis that think bicycling 2 km instead of driving a car will save the planet or that we will solve every problem with green energy, and I will not enter such debate.  

But the fact is that the consumption will grow! Unless bitcoin dies and I doubt anyone around here with a working brain cell thinks this!
And with consumption growth, you will see more and more people being against it, like it happened in Chelan, Mason and many others and we're going to see people proposing even more dumb ideas as bitcoin mining tax, we will see extra vat on mining gear on top of Trump's idiotic tariffs and much more.

Right now mining is flying under the radar, when it will be a too bigger business to be ignored, there will be ...consequences.
I am just stating the obvious from my point of view, if you think that this propaganda, well, good luck with it, it's your opinion and my prediction, but unfortunately only one will be right in the end.

indeed, except not the figures you're citing

the whole anthropogenic climate change argument is the actual problematic data, as it was proven, beyond any doubt, to be fraudulent over 10 years when significant people in the IPCC fraternity were caught red-handed discussing the falsification of climate data in order to "prove" the non-existent case for anthropogenic climate change


the entire premise for this thread is a sham, you should be ashamed of yourself for helping to promote this propaganda

Well, pray!   
I stated numerous times in the mining board and in some other discussions, I have no $^^&& idea.

Right now from my point of view, the only way we have right now to not continue this absurd consumption increase is to pray the halving will take care of it.
The reward halving this year will take care of the growth even if we see prices doubling, same for the next one coming in 4 years.
So in terms of consumption, what we have right now will be the same as 2026 at 30-35k/BTC.

But if BTC price doesn't give a damn about this and it grows to some insane levels somewhere this year or next, prepare your popcorn. And buy a kettle for it as microwaving might become really expensive. 

So what would you do?

The moment you bring in gas consumption per car into a discussion about electric energy consumption is the moment you lose all credibility.


This is the problem, actual data!
It's like taking road fatality statistics from 1860 and projecting the situation in 2050 based on that.

80Twh might still be nothing but look at the exact graph you have posted:
July 2015, estimated at 2Twh
July 2017, it was estimated at 10Twh.
July 2019,  It was estimated at 60 Twh.

Right now it matters not that much but what will happen if the price grows again?
If we see 800 Twh?
Oh but it will still be only 0.4% of the world global consumption
What happens when bitcoins will go beyond the 100k?

I'm going to tell you what happens, consequences! and what happened in Plattsburgh will happen all over the place!
But it's not a problem, right, miners will go to a country where they accept bitcoin mining, of course, this will be with consequences just like every damn action on this planet has. You want all the mining gear to end up in a country like Russia where they could simply cut the entire network and seize the machine because Putin had a bad dream?

Right now on a global scale bitcoin mining means nothing. But so does bitcoin, what's that 300k transaction day and 20 million addresses with more than 1$?
It's like the economy of Swaziland (not Switzerland).
And when it will really start growing and start being used its value will grow, consequence > reward growing > consequence > more mining gear > consequence >electric consumption.

But yeah, all it's fine now, let's just wait for it.
Just like all was fine till the fork wars and the fee war at the end of 2017!
Everything is fine ....till .....it is not fine anymore.

And again I'm not advocating for PoS which is really a Piece of S, or master nodes or else. Nor do I think that changing algorithms will fix it since it's pretty obvious for anyone knowing what revenue and cost are it won't.

In light of the total wealth that is being secured by the Bitcoin network (both current, ~200bn, and future projections upto a few trillions USD), I think the world is getting a really good deal with the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network, especially when compared to the waste that is the banking industry.

Let's beat this with actual statistics, I think it's pretty obvious this person doesn't really understand anything about what she is talking about anyway.

Going off a graphic, it seems in 2018 the world used 200,000 (TWH), and following the usually % increase in electricity cost, it's fair to say that ~ 84.23 TWH has been used in 2019. Now, I am using a tool created by students at Cambridge university - https://www.cbeci.org/.

With the current bitcoin network power (which keep in mind, is even higher then the network power last year), it estimates that 10-11 GW is being used a year for bitcoin network power. 0.042‬% of electricity... That is not a much, compared to how much % other services take up.

Getting into whether or not corporations are actually taxed is a whole other discussion. I'm of the opinion that countries could do more to coerce corporations into contributing more of their profits to taxes instead of turning a blind eye to giants like Apple funneling billions offshore. But that's a discussion beyond emissions.

The core of your point is valid so long as we're talking about sales taxes. Yes, they do get passed down to the consumer, but on the way down the entire supply chain is affected. In the case of emissions, this inefficiency that tax causes, is a desired result because the goal is to reduce emissions and not to increase transaction efficiency. A carbon tax for the purchase of bitcoin miners could contribute positively to reducing the demand for miners and indirectly reducing emissions.

you mean the puny Swiss designed car in existence, the Smart Fortwo.  , where do you think the Swiss drive their cars, on the slope of Alps? Swiss use their congested commuter trains and buses as well as 2 legs to travel around and maybe use their cars during vacation outside the country. The Swiss energy footprint for all practical purpose is nada, and thus Bitcoin network's energy consumption, which is similar to this tiny country, should not be a point of debate.

You mean, corporations are supposed to collect it from the buyers of their products and remit it to the government.  People are the only entities that pay taxes, corporations etc merely collect them on behalf of someone else and divide the costs primarily on consumers and employees.

the whole point of the tech behind Bitcoin was always to reinforce the age-old principle of "it's my life, and hence none of your fucking business"

guess what? it applies here (as well as everywhere, seeing as it's a principle)


if the oil industry/government sponsored plans to get us digital serfs to pay for breathing air was actually based in factual science, then I could understand your point. But you'd have to be a complete moron to believe that nonsense, right?


Again, please stick to looking cool and feeling slightly smug about your pub-stool honed native wit; politics, science and really anything requiring the faintest level of acquired intellect are not your strong point

Yeah, and they eat chocolate all day that comes out of blue cows' horns.
Switzerland is the 10th in vehicle ownership per capita, with four countries being obviously not suited for these criteria ( San Marino or Liechtenstein).
And while the US might have more cars per capita they also have older cars by an average of 2 years.
Also, it is ranked 93 in the world by cattle numbers, but who cares about facts, right?

I assume for you it's a matter a pride to live in a natural not insulated cave by the seaside and heat yourself with an air conditioner.
But it's nice to see people ready to throw shit an entire country just to defend their point of view.


Yeah, but the moment the image is gone they would stop caring.
We do the same all the time, for most of my friends a trip to my family farm would be traumatic and they would have problems eating a hamburger but after a few days....Same with clothes, we're enraged when finding out they are made by child labor but a week after we care only about the price tag. And it's a never-ending list.

In the end, it is the personal interest that matters, it's the only thing that stays with us, feelings come and go.

the 9 million people who live like ants, in stinky insulated cottages, burning oil and wood to heat them, where AC is a remote concept, hardly drive any cars, and in a tiny mountainous isolated region full of cows.

vs

the 300k people who live in the real world, wanting to secure real wealth from destruction.

Security is expensive, if in doubt look at the American military.

I'll guess that 90 per cent or more have no concept of this. They see a jolly number on coinbase or in their wallet that looks as benign as Google Doc entry, which of course has its own mound of machines sucking power.

It reminds me a little of the ultimate punishment in one of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy books where you're taken into a chamber that shows the true scale of the universe and how microscopic you are which scrambles your mind.

If people could conceive of those warehouses filled with screaming machines when they tip that camgirl to shove an egg whisk up her arse they might have rather different feelings.

There's a wonderful thing promoted by the EU, called a carbon/emissions tax. Corporations are already forced to carry it when selling products that contribute to emissions.
This measure acts as a powerful counter-incentive to invest more in emission-heavy projects. The less efficient solutions are being scrapped faster due to it. So, this is already being done in the EU to big companies. You could argue that some of the largest contributors could pay more though, but it'd be hard for this cost to not reach consumers.

There are several drawbacks to this measure including that it's hard to police (see recent VW scandal) and that it also forwards many of the costs to the end of the consumption line, consumers. Also, some of the poorest parts of the population have their margins for survival pushed to become even thinner by rising prices and all the financial disincentives for using inefficient technology. But at large, the carbon tax strategy has proven to contribute positively towards its purpose.

IN my view, any attempt to apply it directly to individuals would shatter... The drive to even attempt collection this way might even cost more. And since we're talking about BTC,  really who's going to report on earnings that will result in retroactive taxation. Especially since cryptocurrency is hard to trace back to individuals...

It'd be best if miner production companies and miner importers were forced to attach an amount for tax to their sales, based on estimated consumption. This way taxation on miners could be applied pro-actively. And also, no market would be destroyed. The market would push out less efficient miners and might experience reduced growth, but at the end, that's the goal of a carbon tax.

Oh, but they did!
When you want BTC to reach 20k$ prepare for the consequences

It's normal.
Do you think that people would be doing that much illegal logging if trees would fully grow in 3 months?
Do you think we would have hundreds of coal mines if seagulls would just poop coal?
Miners mine because there is $ to be earned, simple.

The reward is meant to protect the network, if the reward is big, the network would be better protected but...as I said there are consequences.

It's the same as those wishing for gold to hit 25k.
Guess what will happen to the gold mining industry!


If someone does this, please compare something the size of bitcoin in terms of usage, not the whole banking system who is serving 3 billion people.
And if you go by the logic, yeah Bitcoin can be used by 3 billion people, when that will happen the price would probably be x1000 and we're back to square 0.1

PS.
No, I don't believe PoS is a solution and I dislike it far more than PoW

But these figures aren't really much to do with those doing transactions. It's a few hundred or thousand miners chasing profit. Users didn't request these consumption levels though their security benefits from them.

It would be interesting to compare it to industries or companies rather than countries to see where it stands.

I would seize all computers used for frivolous work, including for social media likes and rants, and use them to mine Bitcoin and provide financial independence to people all around the world. If you Tweet and cause people to spend electricity (and thefore produce carbon) to like your Tweet, you're evil and deserve to be Thunberg'd.

When I read that I thought it definitely must come from our beloved Greta but it seems stupidity is both contagious and evolving.
But at the same time, I find comparisons like this falling not that far away


Are we really going to compare and say that 9 million people traveling, working, partying and making chocolate and watches consuming the same amount of energy as 300 000 people doing a transaction a day is the same?


There is no such thing.
The main factor driving energy consumption up is the price.
If tomorrow bitcoin drops to 1$ and the reward will be 1800$ a day you will see a hundred people still mining with their Block Erupters.

If it goes to 1 million, expect an increase in energy consumption of 60 times because even after the halving the reward would be 900 million a day, out of which you can spend let's say 75% on energy and it will lead to some 240 billions worth of energy being used by miners.

Right, that too  and don't forget the clothes made of synthetic materials    (which I can be she is also wearing!).

I can imagine she would say to seize all asset for people who use plastic (which made from oil/fossil fuel)

If BTC replaces a large chunk of other industries then the power consumption, while not great, is at least relatively justifiable.

As it stands, a few million people doing little more than sending back and forth to exchanges, I don't think it is.

Maybe it'll drive innovation and efficiency harder than it otherwise would've. Claiming everything's fine based purely on the current usage doesn't turn me on. Let's hope tomorrow brings more.

I think she means anyone involved in any way in bitcoin.  She seems like an authoritarian to the core who wants to control everyone else via money.

Define gargantuan, Power consumption equivalent to a tiny country like Switzerland is not gargantuan. Banking industry, gold mining industry are far bigger energy consumers than the Bitcoin network and mining infrastructure. We should dock her fiat salary and buy miners and solar panels with it.

At first I wanted to disagree regarding "nobody" because I thought this article was from the USA Today online. But then I realized they were kind of impostors in a way, like abibas or reebak. Look how their twitter page looks, in comparison with what they are posing as:





I think such "news agencies" as U.Today can't be trusted, I mean, at all.

I guess that by same logic everybody who ever went to school or work by car (or non-electric bus) will have to have all his funds seized, including the historical earnings.
I almost wrote "histerical". No wonder... 

WTF is "work in bitcoin" suppose to mean? Is she targetting us, sig renters? Or does she means people who mine or offer services in exchange for Bitcoins? Or is she calling out Bitcoin Core devs? These snowflakes can't even write out their thoughts properly. I did a rough calculation last year from the data which is available for public... Turns out more energy gets wasted by the Americans alone than what the entire Bitcoin network uses. How about we start seizing the assets of those who waste energy?   ^{( I feel like I should make a proper thread about this and put this issue to rest once and for all )}

Some nobody from Twitter makes a dumb and extreme statement - so what? Is this news-worthy today? Crypto news sites have nothing to report, so they have to grasp at straws, lol. What's next - screenshots of Bitcointalk trolls telling how Bitcoin is doomed? If this tweet was made by some world leader or at least a sitting government officials, maybe it would have been worthy reporting. But we saw Trump criticize crypto last year, and nothing came out of it, aside from Libra getting blocked.

There are only two possible reasons why she posts such nonsense, this is an incredibly stupid person with very low intelligence or she is well paid to spread the word about how BTC destroys the environment. Whatever the reason, anyone who wants to be objective can see from all available research that the total amount of electricity used by BTC amounts to barely 0.2% of total global energy consumption.

I would personally confiscate her car, calculated how much she polluted the environment during her life, how much electricity she spent watching TV, working on a computer, by using banks/ATMs and then condemning her to work for life for the common good.

Power consumption provides network security.  I'm sure she'd much rather have everyone use fiat so she can seize it in or inflate the value away in order to fund whatever he pet projects are, but some of us believe that we have the right to the products of our lives and we aren't slaves to satisfy her whines.

lol

She should have her mind check, stop with this non-sense. Climate change or at at least the worsening of mother nature was due to several factors and she shouldn't blame everything on bitcoin mining. So blame the banking system as well they also produce 'green-house' effect.

I think he just needed some attention here, otherwise she really need to do something else in her life instead of pointing fingers to bitcoin.

I could have agreed with Eleanor Saitta if it is only Bitcoin that is consuming the power or electricity of all the myriad of industries we already have. Although I am personally pushing for maybe a better or improved Bitcoin mining technology that can consume lesser power, putting the big blame on  this industry is unwarranted and unacceptable. This is just actually one of the many ills manifesting with climate change activists, they think that they are the most righteous and the most authoritative on the whole matter and that we should be listening to all they are saying. I am not then wondering why there is also a growing number of people questioning these activists because some of their conclusions and recommended of actions can be misguided. I am not trying to defend Bitcoin mining here but we should look at things with a better perspective and not make something just another scapegoat and maybe even use as a launching pad for a hidden agenda just lurking at the background.

People like her need to find something better to do.  She will easily convince some people that Bitcoin is the enemy of our climate.

Agreed if she campaigns for seizure of the oil companies and car companies profits also. They have been responsible for the destruction of the environment for years before the first coin in the cryptospace.



Bitcoin uses a gargantuan amount of electric power, which rubs climate activists the wrong way. Some of them want to go to extreme lengths and confiscate your coins to pay for the alleged damage that has been done to the environment. 

During a heated Twitter debate, security researcher Eleanor Saitta came up with a wild idea to seize the holdings of everyone who works with Bitcoin in 2020. In fact, she is convinced that all your assets, including historical earnings, should be confiscated to pay for "climate reparations."

Read in full https://u.today/your-bitcoin-btc-should-be-seized-to-pay-for-climate-reparations-says-security-consultant