But that high electricity consumption from POW mining has become a weapon for the environmentalists. Whenever the bad side of POW is discussed, electricity consumption and increase carbon emissions remains the top concerns amongst others. So I personally think that POS is far better than POW.
You don't need expensive hardwares, you don't need to maintain the mining setup. All you need is some amount of that coin to lock up under a contract within the chain. If you don't have the required amount of coins to stake, pool staking is also available.
POS actually makes cryptocurrency more accessible to mass!
you dont need to work to get social security. so in your mind, a life on social security is a better life then working for a living?
PoW is not a weapon of environmentalists.
the big farms have since 2014 been using renewables.
its actually a weapon of the small minded racists.
ill explain briefly
alot of media portrays china as evil enemies of the west. saying that china wastes fossil fuel and produces more emissions..
but here is some stats.
american population 320mill - emissions 5gtonne
chinese population 1400mill - emissions 10gtonne
do the math. gtonne / 100m population
america: 1.56gtonne
china: 0.71gtonne
china produce under HALF as much emissions per populous
next lets look at the Gwatts produced by country
Total(GWh) Total RE(GWh) RE % of total
USA: 4,322,038 637,076 14.7%
china: 7,142,200 1,739,400 24.35%
translate to 100m populous
Total(GWh) Total RE(GWh) RE % of total
USA: 1,350,636 199,086 14.7%
china: 510,157 124,242 24.35%
and again china use less electricity in general per populous but more of it is renewable.
and this is even with china being the mega manufacturer of most electronic goods for the world.
think about all them factories. and industry. yet america wastes more electric and more of that electric is not renewable
so when media exaggerate that china is killing the planet. china is producing too much carbon, china is not using renewable.. thats MEDIA. not reality
..
when there are two people.. one using 13 non efficient lightbulbs in his house. and another guy using just 5 efficient lightbulbs. and its the 13bulb guy trying to tell the 5 bulb guy that the 5 bulb guy need to use less lights... sorry but thats not logic. and its definitely not a "environmental" argument. its just a way to be racist to the 5 bulb guy to try getting him to play to the whims of the 13 bulb guys naive ignorant mindset.
much like the 13 bulb guy wants to pay for his electricity using his social security cheque because he does not believe in working for his earnings, whilst the 5 bulb guys works for a living