Topic: What happens when the "Greens" object to bitcoin - page 3. (Read 1041 times)
I imagine there will be massive use of solar panels etc. Once the price of solar comes down even further, it would make sense for a mining farm to buy a solar wall and use that to generate electricity rather than pay for it.
I mean, they're already objecting. I've seen a lot of Twitter chatter on the topic lately.
Long-term, I figure the most likely outcomes are:
It's also possible that the BTC ecosystem just soldiers on, not caring about its externalities on the literal ecosystem, and its network effects (first mover advantage etc) let it get away with that. But IMO that's a bad outcome, and probably not as likely as the above.
Long-term, I figure the most likely outcomes are:
- Wind/solar become so cheap/plentiful that they outcompete even (e.g.) coal plants in Inner Mongolia for pure BTC/kWh.
- A Bitcoin proof-of-stake fork gets broad community adoption.
- A non-Bitcoin proof-of-stake coin (Casper Ethereum, f'rex) ends up becoming the dominant cryptocoin for everyday users.
It's also possible that the BTC ecosystem just soldiers on, not caring about its externalities on the literal ecosystem, and its network effects (first mover advantage etc) let it get away with that. But IMO that's a bad outcome, and probably not as likely as the above.
Sometime in the future the "Greens" will object loudly to Bitcoin's energy consumption. Does anyone think the voices will get so loud, POW for Bitcoin will be a controversy?
This is one of Bitcoin's weak spots in the public opinion arena. Does anyone think somewhere down the road POW might be changed?
This is one of Bitcoin's weak spots in the public opinion arena. Does anyone think somewhere down the road POW might be changed?
Jump to: