Topic: Dealing with environmental impact (Read 192 times)

Do you people work for CNN or want to work for CNN? If I was the hiring manager I would hire you all as you have hyped up the fact that humans are bad and cause the world woe with carbon dioxide (language change to just "carbon" because adding dioxide is just too hard to remember). So since you are made of carbon by proxy you are bad for the earth better eat your GMOs and take your big pharma pills advertised on CNN. Oh wait that's too slow of a death better get the vaccine lets all get the vaccine!! cuz doc sez its good then trust me its good. No still too slow and we live in an instant gratification culture better pull out that gun (even though you all hate em) and pull the trigger... Naw just kidding but for real they want you dead....

If Bitcoin is so bad sell it down to 20K and collect the FED Stamps. Go back to a normal life and work for CNN normies!!!! I'm fining to get my bilk on with bigz when we go to 100K high this year baaabbbyyyy!!!!

CNN Director ADMITS Network Engaged in ‘Propaganda’ to Remove Trump from Presidency + Now that he's out and COVID hype has died down lets hype humans are bad for environment again m'kay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv8Zy-JwXr4

BREAKING: Fox 26 Reporter Releases tape of ‘Corruption,’ ‘Censorship.’ Fox Corp Boss told Hecker “cease & desist” posting on Hydroxychloroquine & ‘Poor African-Americans’ don’t care about Bitcoin. “Viewers being Deceived”
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/breaking-fox-26-reporter-releases-tape-of-corruption-censorship-fox-corp/

So, the response would be to collect investments for green Bitcoin mining ventures?

Argentina is a very small country so its possible that BTC consumes energy like that.

BTC mining consumes a lot of energy especially for large scale mining where they run their system 24/7

Who the fuck will believed BTC consumes the same amount of energy as the entire country of Argentina is just a fud.
It's like they just wanted the price to go down. Anyone can create a fud of their own but this time it's orchestrated by the big personalities like Elon and the media they own. What purpose? So they could steal BTC from the new BTC investors who panic every time the price is red.

The explosive growth of cryptocurrencies has created millions of millionaires, reshaped money, and become a multi-billion dollar industry. The computing power needed to support the network to operate Bitcoin currently consumes the same amount of energy as the entire country of Argentina, which has led to a series of environmental criticisms. The demand for energy for Bitcoin mining has increased in recent months due to the continuous increase in the price of this cryptocurrency.

The joke is that it's always x decades away... but we're undeniably getting closer.
There is a lot of speculation that the new SPARC tokamak could achieve a self-sustaining plasma within the next five years (although obviously we'd still be some years out from a commercial reactor). This design uses the very latest high-temperature superconductors, which perhaps gives it an advantage over the huge ITER project.

Most 'sustainable' methods of converting energy suffer from a massive Achilles heal.  Namely, in order to build out enough capacity to service peek loads, you have to design such that a lot of energy is going to waste at off-peak times.  Solar is a good example, but wind, tidal, hydro, etc suffer from the same basic issue.

Now, if instead of sinking the excess capacity into waste heat you can use it to 'make money', it becomes cost effective to build out facilities sufficient to service customers in peek load times.  Proof-of-work crypto fills the bill nicely.  Ergo, it is actually a benefit to those who would like to build 'sustainable' facilities which will 'save the earth' (if you are the kind of innumerate mouth-breather who buys that Rockefeller funded global climate change via CO2 bullshit.)  Or could be.  Good luck getting financing for something which could support a distributed owner-operated mathematically-backed currency systems from the monolithic debt-backed financial sector.

To dumb it down a little, bitcoin could and probably will run on 'free energy' meaning energy which would otherwise have to go to waste.

Could Satoshi (or the Satoshis as the case may be) have predicted that a properly designed mathematically-backed monetary solution could foster a distributed energy system (where individuals can afford to build out larger home-based solar systems) as a side effect of having a distributed monetary system?  We may never know (but I personally don't seem much evidence for it to be honest.)

---

As an aside, I personally harbor suspicions that nuclear fusion (free clean energy in unlimited quantities) has been for a while now an option but it would to disruptive and 'breeding among the useless eaters' needs to be brought under control before it is 'rolled out'.  This would obviously have an impact on proof-of-work based crypt-currencies.

Its justa blatant blame when they don't have any other issues on their hands, adoption of Bitcoin will eliminate the banks so we can save electricity worldwide which we are using for the banks and money printers to operate, I don't think Bitcoin even consumes 1% of what banks and their allies consumes now.

once you realise this is jsut a new psychological pump and dump cycles. intented to bring bitcoins price back to a corrected price from its $60k ATH bubble. you soon realise. this months low. is just the oppertunity to buy bitcoin while its at a discount.

dont cry that its not sustaining at $60k plus.. it was never going to sustain at $60k plus spring-summer 2021
but its at a new low of $30k for 2021. higher than 2020's <$10k

so take the oppertunity of buying bitcoin at $30k-$40k .. because in january alot of people seeing the $60k said they wish they bought in when it was 50% cheaper.. well that time is now

all other social media drama is empty of solid evidence.
mining farms are 99% done in renewable regions. and it might take a few month for the big mouths to shout about their revelation of the fact to start up a social pump... but eventually when they have bought more coin up and emptied their fiat stash in doing so. they will be ready to pump it again

    Obviously, all these blabber about the bad effects of bitcoin towards the environment are nothing but useless tricks and attempts by the people on top to make bitcoin look way more awful than the actual fact so that these big people along with their big businesses can either manipulate the market for their gains or to deduct the number of crypto enthusiasts in order to delay if not fully stop, the mass adoption of not just bitcoin but also of every altcoin in this industry. Just thinking about how so many things are much worse than bitcoin in terms of environmental damages but are not being criticized as much as bitcoin is already proves my point.

give him time.
right now he is at the stage where he is talking to doge nutjobs which are telling him that mining farms in BTC are fossil fuel consumers. even though its actually the doge nutjobs hobby mining with residential electric that are high% fossil fuel consumers.
next he will go through the obvious PoS phase of trying to talk every PoW algo into changing. then he will realise that its the PoW farming that is investing more money into renewables thus allowing them to upgrade faster, thus helping the transition to renewables.

i give him a 6 month span for those stages.. maybe a year. but he has to go through them the hard way

...
yep bitcoin mining gives renewable powerplants excess funds they wouldnt usually get.
doge just consumes regular electric from area's that are not facilitating hydro

..
give it a further 10 years and the whole eco- debate will switch from coal->hydro->desalinated sea water
where by sea water is cleaned and desalted to refill reservoirs and refill aquifers and just pushed through sprinkler s to re-wet the land and get the water cycle apted up

Ohhh ho ho, you haven't seen his true prowess yet. You will be shocked even more as you go deeper in the forum kekw.

Investments, also known as clean technology investments typically involve the selection of investments in sustainable and environmentally friendly practices and product service firms. While some clean technologies provide improvements that increase the productivity and efficiency of the organization others reduce the environmental impact as the growing energy continues innovation trends have emerged and changed with different energy industry clusters emerging with different levels of investment. Bitcoin's misinformation is being spread to deal with the past effects of the environment.

The "save the environment" nutjobs whining about BTC is nothing more than people spreading misinformation, I don't think it's anything to be worried about. Elon Musk just brought it to the mainstream discussion because apparently he didn't understand that BTC mining requires electricity before Tesla's massive purchase of Bitcoin (or of course, he knew and he lied about it like a slime ball).

Just wait till you read BADecker's other posts. This word salad of stupidity is decidedly tame by his usual standards.

Are you serious? So CO2 is now all of a sudden good for the environment? Then let's go all burn some more fossil fuels, save the environment!
Suppose the greenhouse effect is just a myth then... Do you even know of such things as proportion and balance? The plants can't handle that much CO2 in the atmosphere, it's exceeding the amount the plants can process by a large extent, that's the problem.


Wtf? Water vapor increases the greenhouse effect. In fact, it accounts for the most part of it.

No, it doesn't. Also, no ice -> no reflection of the sunlight -> more energy is absorbed -> the temperature rises.

A very scarce amount of H2O2 is produced in that way, it's not even closely enough to affect bacterial growth and viruses.

This is not a logical derivative of the previous statement (as well as all other statements, it's just a set of random crap). Also, no fighting diseases = no natural immunity.

This is just too much nonsense, can't even respond to that...

Honestly, did you even go to school?

The environmental impact from Bitcoin is only good. How? Needing more electricity means:
- more electrical plants
- more jobs producing electricity
- more CO2 from the power plants
- plant growth in nature increasing from more CO2
- more food from plants allow the populations to grow
- we get more humidity from extra heat
- a warmer atmosphere places more moisture in the air to block the sun's overheating
- evaporation of the water causes cooling as does the blocking of the sun's rays
- a heat equilibrium is reached which warms up Siberia and Antarctica for habitation
- most of the water from the polar caps melting goes into the air rather than the ocean
- all the extra upper air moisture mixes with cosmic rays to produce more natural H2O2
- more H2O2 kills off a whole bunch of disease bacteria and so-called viruses
- the bodies of people don't have to work so hard at fighting diseases
- the now unnecessary medical gets shut down so medical people can find something practical to do
- people start to live long
- longer life helps the highly intelligent people to think longer and better
- more geniuses from higher populations
- better space flight and crop-growing methods are developed by the geniuses
- the earth gets comfortably populated at 100 billion people
- by this time real working space flight has been developed
- populations start moving to the stars

All this because Bitcoin caused us to use more electricity, which caused more CO2, which helped us reach the stars.

I feel like bitcoin is being treated especially bad in this environmental debate. What about the other resources? We should put the energy requirements into perspective into mining other commodities. For example gold, whole landscapes are being destroyed just to drill deep holes into the earth. Or what about getting timber, we destroy the rain forest just to have new houses and furniture. And the timber processing industry requires a lot of energy too.

There are lots of discussions about the impact of Bitcoin on the environment these days, especially due to its PoW-based consensus logic.

But is it reasonable to blame miners, and by extension Bitcoin users, for possible environmental impact this may have? How to properly compare Bitcoin to other industries?

For example, there might be people who are quick when it comes to pointing at Bitcoin users, but who still want to see movies largely based on computer-generated graphics (requiring huge rendering farms), or who insist on bandwidth-intense video streaming instead of multicast or even broadcast based video consumption. In times of the pandemics, they ask for video conferencing where audio conferencing or even e-mail would suffice.

If the computational cost of running the Bitcoin blockchain is an issue, why not solve it by charging a sufficiently large tax on selling electricity? But no, then we cannot just point at Bitcoin, but suddenly everyone who consumes much electricity would have to give their part.