[troorl]

I deem the fiat standard responsible for countless wars and atrocities that have occurred in the past 100 years. The environmental issues that come from mining seem so minor and insignificant in the long run that all the aggression that is justified by them prevents me from taking such attacks seriously. Every year humanity develops better solar panels, leverages geothermal energy more efficiently, improves the fission NPPs and comes closer to designing fusion reactors. It's only a matter of time before we enter the age of cheap, green and almost limitless energy.

I think it's a question of mentality. Some people bet on human ingenuity, and some are willing to halt the progress completely because it hurts "mother earth" in their imagination.

[vesinisa]

The environmental impact of Bitcoin is not any less real than the power consumption & CO2 emissions of an entire country.[1] Since limitless energy is obviously not yet here (and is very unlikely to become a reality in the short term), it is irresponsible to dismiss these concerns.

After fourteen years of running this experiment, Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) have not yet delivered a single real world application that would be beneficial to the society at large - as far as I know.

I can't help wondering if some of the advocates, who continue to defend these technologies, own themselves cryptocurrencies and have a personal profit motive in glorifying/hyping the technology - for example by hinting that cryptocurrencies would have solved "countless wars and atrocities of the past 100 years".

[1]: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

[malermeister]

So basically it's a purely ideological pitch? I'm sorry, but I'd rather spend our limited resources on practical progress that benefits people.

If we do end up in the "age of cheap, green and almost limitless energy", we can use some for crypto, why not. But we're not there yet and I'd rather not put the cart before the horse, given how important an issue energy and climate are.

Your way of accusing sceptics of being in the way of "progress" recalls the promises of soviet planners or various cults. Beware of vague salvation promises in the future - utopian fantasies usually have dystopian outcomes.

[troorl]

I don't consider it an ideological pitch, but who am I to characterise my own words?

[actually_a_dog]

You haven't offered any objective evidence that your viewpoint is correct, which ipso facto implies it's a purely ideologically based statement. To paraphrase an old expression, "you can 'deem' in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first."

Your tone is also similar to that of the stereotypical 14-year old "libertarian/ancap" living in their parents' basement, and your only other comment on this site outside this thread is one from over 6 years ago accusing the Washington Post of publishing fake news. This doesn't affect the truth or validity of what you say, but it doesn't help, either.

[DonHopkins]

Yes, I was getting a distinct "parents' basement" libertarian larva vibe from his tone and lack of evidence too. I wonder if he knows the price of a bar of soap, or cares about externalities or anyone but himself.

It also doesn't help his case that the Levenshtein Distance from "troorl" to "troll" is only 2.

https://planetcalc.com/1721/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31401754

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv_-KOdM6Wk

[DonHopkins]

>It's only a matter of time before we enter the age of cheap, green and almost limitless energy.

If it's coming so soon, then how about you immediately stop burning coal and shilling ugly ape jpegs for a while, until all your utopian libertarian promises are finally fulfilled and free of unintended consequences.

But until such a time, just put a lid on it, m'kay?

[Beltiras]

None of what you mention strictly demands POW blockchains. Is the nature of money changing? Perhaps. Does it need POW to change? No.