Wow, a perspective I have not had the pleasure of knowing! Though I don't completely agree with whats said, it is an eye opening article. Thanks for Sharing
My Site
http://www.EliteTranslingo.com
Topic: Bitcoin is Bad for the environment, taking the worlds energy - yes? - page 6. (Read 4068 times)
June 16, 2016, 06:27:37 PM
June 16, 2016, 06:19:46 PM
It takes resources to keep secure decentralized money running, so its energy well spent, we are getting freedom with Bitcoin, freedom is not cheap.
June 16, 2016, 05:40:54 PM
I think that we can say same about everything that taking worlds energy, people just trying to make money with any possible ways and bitcoin is one of them, nothing critical.
June 16, 2016, 05:38:59 PM
The whole anthropogenic global warming debate is nothing more than a very smart way of making the people of the world pay government cronies for the right to breathe. Several doomsday scenarios were predicted to have struck midnight by the year 2016, and none of them have come to pass. Natural climate change is much, much more powerful than 0.01% changes in CO2 atmospheric composition that burning fossil fuels has contributed; Bitcoin mining compares to the previous 2 factors as an infinitesimally small blip. OP is FUD.
June 16, 2016, 05:36:58 PM
Mining uses more power than a country of 4-5 million people? Each of whom have washing machines, vibrators, Teslas, streetlamps outside their houses, trams and on and on.
I'm sure Bitcoin's carbon footprint is a disgrace considering the tiny number of users, but that seems like an excessive statistic.
I'm sure Bitcoin's carbon footprint is a disgrace considering the tiny number of users, but that seems like an excessive statistic.
June 16, 2016, 05:32:06 PM
To be honest we should compare the consumption of electricity used in bitcoin vs the electricity used in all the banks of the world, the machines that make the money...etc meanwhile we have to encourage the use of the clean sources of energy for bitcoin mining.
Back to the bad for environment things, bitcoin is way less ''toxic'' than the factories gases & wastes, the oil mines...etc and consume less energy
Bitcoin haters have a weird vision of things
Back to the bad for environment things, bitcoin is way less ''toxic'' than the factories gases & wastes, the oil mines...etc and consume less energy
Bitcoin haters have a weird vision of things
June 16, 2016, 05:26:12 PM
(I think this should go in mining)
There has been a lot of talk on this. Quite a few good papers
https://karlodwyer.github.io/publications/pdf/bitcoin_KJOD_2014.pdf
From this paper: "Bitcoin mining is comparable to Ireland’s electricity consumption".
As bitcoin grows the amount of energy on the planet is not increasing. Anyone who understands the article, it seems very legitimate to me, discuss, Yes, I realize the miner wants to reduce cost & cut waste. Therefore they may seek alternative forms or desire to do so. Yes, I read about the Hydrofarmer on this very forum. It is just not the norm with all the major miners around the planet. Proof of work is expensive. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work
**Title was sarcastic. But it is still something to think about?
"As bitcoin grows the amount of energy on the planet is not increasing"There has been a lot of talk on this. Quite a few good papers
https://karlodwyer.github.io/publications/pdf/bitcoin_KJOD_2014.pdf
From this paper: "Bitcoin mining is comparable to Ireland’s electricity consumption".
As bitcoin grows the amount of energy on the planet is not increasing. Anyone who understands the article, it seems very legitimate to me, discuss, Yes, I realize the miner wants to reduce cost & cut waste. Therefore they may seek alternative forms or desire to do so. Yes, I read about the Hydrofarmer on this very forum. It is just not the norm with all the major miners around the planet. Proof of work is expensive. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work
**Title was sarcastic. But it is still something to think about?
Bitcoin mining it was consuming a lot of energy, and more people conduct mining activities it's it is not directly proportional to the increase in energy on the planet,even it's only waste a lot of the energy just for the benefit of one-sided.
June 16, 2016, 05:17:31 PM
(I think this should go in mining)
There has been a lot of talk on this. Quite a few good papers
https://karlodwyer.github.io/publications/pdf/bitcoin_KJOD_2014.pdf
From this paper: "Bitcoin mining is comparable to Ireland’s electricity consumption".
As bitcoin grows the amount of energy on the planet is not increasing. Anyone who understands the article, it seems very legitimate to me, discuss, Yes, I realize the miner wants to reduce cost & cut waste. Therefore they may seek alternative forms or desire to do so. Yes, I read about the Hydrofarmer on this very forum. It is just not the norm with all the major miners around the planet. Proof of work is expensive. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work
**Title was sarcastic. But it is still something to think about?
There has been a lot of talk on this. Quite a few good papers
https://karlodwyer.github.io/publications/pdf/bitcoin_KJOD_2014.pdf
From this paper: "Bitcoin mining is comparable to Ireland’s electricity consumption".
As bitcoin grows the amount of energy on the planet is not increasing. Anyone who understands the article, it seems very legitimate to me, discuss, Yes, I realize the miner wants to reduce cost & cut waste. Therefore they may seek alternative forms or desire to do so. Yes, I read about the Hydrofarmer on this very forum. It is just not the norm with all the major miners around the planet. Proof of work is expensive. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work
**Title was sarcastic. But it is still something to think about?
Jump to: