[35fbe7d3d5b9]

> Wouldn't be fair to compare the amount energy to run bitcoin vs the amount of energy to run the banking system?

Hasn't this comparison been made over and over, and every time it comes out in favor of traditional banking by a mile?

[pelasaco]

could you provide any link or resource for further reading? I never saw anything like that and I would like to know what they are taking into account in this comparison.

[f00zz]

"One Bitcoin transaction would generate the CO2 equivalent to 706,765 swipes of a Visa credit card, according to Digiconomist’s closely-followed index, albeit with none of the convenience of plastic."

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/is-bit...

[pelasaco]

Thank you for the link, but thats not the same thing. Try to transfer heavy money from Venezuela to Japan, being in Venezuela or from Ghana to Germany, being in Ghana, using your Visa credit card. Try to do it under 24 hours. The fastest way will be flying which can be easily more expensive and risky than bitcoin.

[imtringued]

Visa doesn't use flights to transfer money so you aren't talking about the same thing.

Other cryptocurrencies that use less energy can be used to transfer money to Venezuela so Bitcoin still loses against other cryptocurrencies for fringe use cases.

[imtringued]

You have to consider that Bitcoin offers nothing beyond a ledger/a bar tab. It doesn't do lending, which is the core business of banks. Sure ETH has some smart contracts do that do lending but we are talking about Bitcoin. If Bitcoin could only grow up like his little brother nobody would complain.