[kennywinker]

Right, so my conveyancer (trusted by me, and my lender) escrows the money (lent to me by a bank that trusts me) via blockchain. How is this better than the current situation, where wire transfers are used, except 1) smaller fees 2) massive carbon footprint? Because I didn’t see any armored cars involved to offset the PoW energy.

I’m not saying blockchain is useless - just i see no use for it when it comes to the way that 99% of americans buy their house - and if 99% of americans switch to btc for this kind of transaction the carbon cost would be massive.

[vmception]

The carbon argument is so weird to me because if people understood blockchains it would actually bolster their argument.

Proof of Work Blockchains use the same energy whether there are any transactions or not. The idea that your participation or lack thereof deters demand in protest of the carbon footprint is just … wrong. Inaccurate.

[kennywinker]

Sure it’s not a direct per-transaction carbon footprint - but every transaction has mining fees, and more transactions mean there’s more money in mining which means more miners which means more carbon burnt.

[vmception]

this doesn't affect demand enough to die on that hill.

[kennywinker]

So far it has. The amount of co2 emitted by mining has gone up to match it’s adoption… is that supposed to stop somehow?

[vmception]

The price on exchanges has little to do with onchain activity, which has always been a criticism of the valuation metrics, you are somehow reappropriating that retroactively in a way incompatible with the other criticism

its mind boggling… I would say more but I’m reserving my thoughts in case you have a rationale that is more convincing