Topic: Bitcoin and global warming - page 5. (Read 3019 times)
stop mining activities with high spec hardware which costs a lot of electricity. make bitcoin a fair industry, with all those who become investors with relatively similar capital.
The relationship between bitcoin and energy has always been complicated. The claim about excessive energy consumption may be a bit exaggerated. At least there is not enough speech to prove that global warming has anything to do with mining. But the development of virtual currency needs to move towards sustainability, encourage new innovations that reduce emissions, and inspire some people to develop carbon-neutral currencies.
The whole global economy is based on mining and burning energy resources that have been stored within the earth for millions of years. Bitcoin is based on the one reliable thing in life: greed. It is foolish to expect people not taking the shortest (-sighted) route to monetary wealth. That is why I am suspicious about crypto energy projects.
i agree with you global warming is happen because of greed people and foolish people that want to make profit by themslevese without care about the condition in the world, use more energy is makes global warming happen
For me, I don't think that bitcoin mining have a big impact on global warming. It is the nuclear bomb testing and smoke belching that really contribute of global warming. Each one of us care about global warming and want to help by reducing and recycling.
Global warming is mostly a leftest political ideology and there is plenty of fake news out there about it. There is also a lot of evidence suggesting we are heading the opposite direction towards another ice age cycle.
The world economy is based on paper currencies in most of the countries like USA, China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and others. We know paper currencies are made of wood and when we cut wood, oxygen decreases and carbon-dioxide increases and carbon-dioxide is one of the main reason of global warming ( caused by afforestation). So, paper currency is more liable of global warming than Digital Currencies.
Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.
I can say for myself that I care much about ecology and think this is really huge problem but on the other hand I don't think bitcoin is so big electricity consumer. Some other activities and industries are much more dangerous in that sense and the percentage that is used for bitcoin mining is not considerable.
Still in the future maybe some alternative solution could be found.
Still in the future maybe some alternative solution could be found.
This huge energy consumption is bad for the Earth, but good for many parties, and so do not think it will be changed. Enourmos companies are already behind.
Come on man. bitcoin only contributes little to the electricity used. after all the world will be more advanced and electricity as the main resource for using bitcoin and primary resources will certainly be increasingly innovated. many companies are beginning to innovate with solar electricity or other innovations. so I don't think bitcoin is bad environment
I would like to raise a point that may seem contrary to what you have said in your discussion's topic.
Every country has one way or another to conduct its economic activity. Mineral extraction, agriculture, Oil rigs, etc., all are the ways that provide for its inhabitants.
Bitcoin mining is just one of those ways and is no different. Its effect on the environment is almost negligible. There are far worse ways in which we damage the environment, like smoke emissions from vehicles, untreated waste in the water bodies, aerosols, etc. Maybe we should be focusing on those instead of bitcoin.
The major hazard caused by cryptocurrency is the multiplied risk of frauds, scams, and chargebacks. A bitcoin transaction cannot be reversed and the whole system is decentralized. It means, once sent, the money cannot be received back, unless the receiver is kind enough to send it back. No governance or accountability causes the Bitcoin Business to be risky. But environmental concerns have nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Here are some ways you can protect your bitcoin business:
Every country has one way or another to conduct its economic activity. Mineral extraction, agriculture, Oil rigs, etc., all are the ways that provide for its inhabitants.
Bitcoin mining is just one of those ways and is no different. Its effect on the environment is almost negligible. There are far worse ways in which we damage the environment, like smoke emissions from vehicles, untreated waste in the water bodies, aerosols, etc. Maybe we should be focusing on those instead of bitcoin.
The major hazard caused by cryptocurrency is the multiplied risk of frauds, scams, and chargebacks. A bitcoin transaction cannot be reversed and the whole system is decentralized. It means, once sent, the money cannot be received back, unless the receiver is kind enough to send it back. No governance or accountability causes the Bitcoin Business to be risky. But environmental concerns have nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Here are some ways you can protect your bitcoin business:
Quote
This huge energy consumption is bad for the Earth, but good for many parties, and so do not think it will be changed. Enourmos companies are already behind.
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.
The majority of ICOs I've invested in recently are using green energy. Actually, that was a huge argument for.
I think bitcoin is not the number one reason of the global warming. Almost everything we do can cause that. Mining is revolutionary and it is the future.
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.
Not interested in your mad-cap commie globalist "global warming" hoax
This is a very important issue and worth mentioning here. I think many people really do not care about this. Bitcoin mining negatively affects our environment and global warming due to the amount of electricity consumed in factories. This is a concern and we should limit the construction of bitcoin plants to protect our environment
Indeed, Bitcoin has led to an increase in demand for electricity, which produces heat, which, in turn, affects global warming. But now many projects are being developed that want to introduce environmentally friendly fuel obtained from the sun, wind and water. Thanks to such developments, we can avoid any problems without harming nature.
Some interesting research on this subject from 'Katrina Kelly-Pitou'
"Electricity production can increase while still maintaining a minimal impact on the environment. Rather than focusing on how much energy Bitcoin uses, the discussion should center around who indeed is producing it – and where their power comes from."
"did we ask this question before the internet grew globally? "
"Banks use up electricity an estimated 100 terawatts/y (branches, computing atms etc)"
"If Bitcoin technology were to mature by more than 100 times its current market size, it would still equal only 2 percent of all energy consumption."
"Electricity production can increase while still maintaining a minimal impact on the environment. Rather than focusing on how much energy Bitcoin uses, the discussion should center around who indeed is producing it – and where their power comes from."
"did we ask this question before the internet grew globally? "
"Banks use up electricity an estimated 100 terawatts/y (branches, computing atms etc)"
"If Bitcoin technology were to mature by more than 100 times its current market size, it would still equal only 2 percent of all energy consumption."
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 will not like what i love like bitcoin to be a source of danger to life. So i will suggest that a different source of energy for bitcoin mining should be explored so that the environment will be saved from green house effect. There are several other source that energy can be sourced , example we can get energy from solar, from the wind and hydro sources. I believe with a little push mining could be sustained with energy from these sources.
Bitcoin has become famous of the revolutionary proof of work solution. It is truly sad, thad it uses so much energy, but still could not imagine Bitcoin using other protocol.
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.
I do not quite understand what you are offering. After all, if the miners do not do their job, it will mean that the Bitcoin network will cease to exist. Who will be engaged in finding the next block and how will it be included in the blockchain? How do you think this will happen? 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.
Jump to: