Topic: Bitcoin and global warming (Read 3019 times)
Bitcoin exploration is actually adding within the worldwide heating however because other people say actually banking institutions tend to be performing exactly the same perhaps once the period arrives which bitcoin changed the actual foreign currency fiat program after that it will likely be a suitable utilization of power as well as factor towards the worldwide heating.
I assume that all people in the world are focused on excessive technology and electricity,
So for that if you say Bitcoin is one of the global warming up the world is wrong.
Example:
If Bitcoin isn't there, of course people also have to use an excessive internet system.
As:
- games, banks, telephone, television, nuclear, and many others.
For this reason, in my opinion Bitcoin is not one of the world's global heat sinkers.
So for that if you say Bitcoin is one of the global warming up the world is wrong.
Example:
If Bitcoin isn't there, of course people also have to use an excessive internet system.
As:
- games, banks, telephone, television, nuclear, and many others.
For this reason, in my opinion Bitcoin is not one of the world's global heat sinkers.
Bitcoin is nothing to do with global warming. Global warning is an increase of global temprature which causes climate change. The reason of it are when carbon dioxide, other air pollutants and greenhouse gases collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation that have bounced off the earth’s surface.
Your statement is too deep mate, of course bitcoin will not cause things like that, the current concern is, many people say that bitcoin is not good for the environment because bitcoin uses electricity resources, such as crypto mining that uses too much electricity? I think this won't be too dangerous for the environment, isnt it ? 
There is a certain paradox. Prices are taken from exchanges, and many large exchanges are offline, roughly speaking from pocket to pocket. But the course is from the exchange. So the price is the same and there is no undervaluation? So it costs so much. Where to go in growth? Everyone is happy 🤔
I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income. More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income. More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.
What about el.cars? How many toxic gases and waste they generate while producing batteries and don't forget they sale oil to make el.cars. And we all are almost forced ti buy them because they are green. Look there is a lot of things that polute the earth. And I don't think only crypto can help the earth
I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income. More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.
no, bitcoin mining activity has little effect on global warming, compared to motor vehicle fumes, forest destruction and factory volumes, so bitcoin mining is not the main problem and not the cause of global warming. Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income. More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.
Intermittency of "green" energy is a serious problem for grid operators, which must constantly balance supply and demand of energy.
Free market and sometimes negative prices of energy are very helpful, industrial plants can switch on excess heating or cooling processes, and earn money while balancing the grid.
But even better solution would be to mine cryptocurrency in periods when there is too much sun and wind in relation to the needs.
I believe that cryptocurrency mining can paradoxically contribute to the faster development of green energy.
Free market and sometimes negative prices of energy are very helpful, industrial plants can switch on excess heating or cooling processes, and earn money while balancing the grid.
But even better solution would be to mine cryptocurrency in periods when there is too much sun and wind in relation to the needs.
I believe that cryptocurrency mining can paradoxically contribute to the faster development of green energy.
The use of bitcoin electricity is several times higher than the amount of electricity consumed in the operations of the old financial system. Bitcoin consumes a large amount of electricity "exponentially." Banks say that if people do not continue to use "reliable" old payment gateways, switching to Bitcoin will deplete the world's power supply,
Sure bitcoin mining is one of the factor that cause global warming but it is not the main one, there are huge causes of it like gas emissions, smokes from burning garbage fields, smokes from cigarettes and many more. Also i think that they are thinking for an alternative solution for bitcoin mining like solar power and hydro powered electricity.
There are so many reasons why global warming happens. Though bitcoin mining and other cryptocurrency may indeed have used up a lot of electricity in the process but I do think there are other big reasons why we could not just stop global warming so easily. In our environment carbon emissions are high, so may be their is something that has to be done to help resolve too much use of energy. Their could be some other way around to help shorten the process of mining and some other means to make transactions easier but still safe. I think we need more studies on it. I haven't known much about the technology you have said but if their is any chance of allowing as to save electricity then maybe it could help the cryptocurrency economy. So maybe it is worth trying....
Bitcoin will save millions of tree's, once the paper stops being printed.
I think the bitcoin can make some CSR or known as customer service relationship,
helping the nature by itself to recover from continuous destruction is a big thing not just for you but for the entire world
helping the nature by itself to recover from continuous destruction is a big thing not just for you but for the entire world
I think that Bitcoin does not pose a really big threat to the environment. In our world there are many sources of pollution that pollute the environment much more than Bitcoin.
this has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Bitcoin is a virtual currency that is accessed on the internet which means global warming is caused by smoke pollution and tree felling. maybe subjecknya more precisely mining and global warming because mining has an effect on the effects of hot temperatures
Global warming is not only caused by smoke pollution and tree felling, we can admit to confirming that bitcoin transactions require mining so that the transactions we perform can work well, and in accessing the internet and mining we need and will use considerable electricity, the greater the electrical power we need will also make global warming that we don't realize. so there are many factors that make global warming continue to increase every day.
I think you have some point especially on the side of electricity because yes, it is rePpy MN really indeed costly in terms of electricity because of the mining industries that consume a vast amount of electricity. More and more mining industries means more are more users of electricity that can be a contributor to global warming. Yes it is right that for now, it is not yet a problem because there are not yet too many mining industries but when we reach that point, maybe that is the time that we can make a solution and even that is the case, we know that is really very hard for us to make a move because there is no really a governing body here that can govern all bitcoin traders and users. So this is really a hard problem to deal with.
Bitcoin is nothing to do with global warming. Global warning is an increase of global temprature which causes climate change. The reason of it are when carbon dioxide, other air pollutants and greenhouse gases collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation that have bounced off the earth’s surface.
If mining has not become the main cause of ecological catastrophe and global warming, it contributes to its aggravation. It is clear that no one will refuse to extract coins, but you must definitely think of a way to get energy resources in an environmentally friendly manner.
But mining is much less harmful to the environment than industry that emits toxic substances. Every day mining is not more profitable, so I think that PoS mining is promising
As bitcoin prices increase, diggers will consume more power until the cost of electricity is equal to sales. One solution to this problem is to use economical digging algorithms. bitcoin, bitcoin gold uses a memory-based digging algorithm that consumes less power, though still consumes a lot of energy. In addition, many other money saving virtualization algorithms
I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income. More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income. More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.
I actually think that mining bitcoins nowadays are more environmentally friendly compared to harvesting cotton or paper for paper money. I know it consumes oil and all but the extent of them using it is way smaller than vehicles and factories will ever have to use.
Bitcoin is not a dust, smoke, fuel or dangerous gas which can harmful to the world but it is a coin or currency like we use currencies in the world so in my opinion bitcoin is not contributing global warming and soon we will accept it for global trade if we use it we will know it's features and it is money so it can be a complete and current asset.
Jump to: