Both views have been repeated many times in this thread and you are right that the others are not giving any prove to support what they are saying but I don’t see you giving any prove either.
That's because I'm not the one making a claim that something will happen. It's not feasible to give citations of people that have had no occurrence of an instance because if it didn't happen there is nothing to report. If however, something does happen reports of that occurrence will be published.
So in this instance, if mining had caused any harm there would be countless people screaming about it, but as it hasn't, there is nothing.
If you are the one making an assertion then you are the one responsible for showing it to be true.
Edit. Missed your second point. If you find the dedicated thread on mining at freebitco.in I did some testing and calculations that I posted there. It was breakeven with a 4-year old i5 so anything newer would be profitable even with expensive UK electricity.
Ok, thanks for your reply. I have found the thread you were talking about and your calculations:
...
...
I just did the maths on my old i5-3750K.
Set at 20% in the background for the last 4 hours averaged 20.85 sat/hr based on 10c KW/hr electricity and $4000 BTC.
I measured an 8.5w increase in CPU power so that's $0.00085 to make $0.000834 of BTC. So just about break-even at the moment, could be worth it if BTC goes up or they increase the rewards like they say.
...
I just did the maths on my old i5-3750K.
Set at 20% in the background for the last 4 hours averaged 20.85 sat/hr based on 10c KW/hr electricity and $4000 BTC.
I measured an 8.5w increase in CPU power so that's $0.00085 to make $0.000834 of BTC. So just about break-even at the moment, could be worth it if BTC goes up or they increase the rewards like they say.
Now the price has almost doubled so we can guess it’s more profitable. Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who claim the opposite.
risk only that, what you are ready to loose.