|
|
|
|
|
by nmj
3120 days ago
|
|
You managed to cram so much wrong into a post it's unbelievable. Let's start with your 'off by one' address scare tactic. Bitcoin addresses contain a built-in check code, so it's generally not possible to send Bitcoins to a mistyped address. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address Ecological concerns? A global, nacent value exchange system uses a little more than the total electricity of holiday lights. In fact many miners use cheap unused energy that would be otherwise costly to build infrastructure to sell normally. https://icenter.co/chinese-hydroelectric-crackdown-herald-de... Too confusing? Seems familiar. Here's a video from 1994 with some talk show hosts confused about 'internet'. Just watch this, please. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlJku_CSyNg |
|
Hydro may be cheap for now, but does that make it okay? If Bitcoin keeps going up, at some point we'll exhaust those more convenient resources. The comparison to holiday lights is misleading because I never said that wasn't bad for the environment either. I'm not sure I can trust a site like icenter.co given it appears pro-bitcoin, but many people are analyzing the environmental impact of bitcoin and it's not negligible and only growing. You're right, it's nascent, and that's the scary part given how inefficient it is.
I stand by too confusing, especially when it comes to financial products. Try to explain proof-of-work to a non-technical person in less than 30 minutes. Explain hard-forks, segwit2, lightning network, double-spend, network attacks, and why the recommendation is to never leave your bitcoin on an exchange.
Our current system of money and banking isn't great, but this is not an improvement.
Edit: Now you've sent me down this other rabbit whole of educating myself on China's Hydro power. China's overbuilding of Dams may be in itself be a big problem (methane release, destruction of biodiversity, 300k deaths). I'd hate for Bitcoins popularity to contribute to the demand side of this equation.