|
|
|
|
|
|
by bostonsre
1108 days ago
|
|
|
Yea, I'm not sure what proportion of the negative camp is negative because of issues in early iterations like power consumption used by bitcoin which is solved with newer tech and what proportion is negative due to the use cases themselves. I do think that a lot of the tech itself is pretty elegant but I'm less certain on whether it's the right solution. I also think the fact that many in the pro camp have investments in crypto currency can muddy the waters some and it's not clear whether a person in this camp believes it can be a proper technology that can benefit humanity or if they like it because it's a historically high growth investment where they are trying to make money currently. At least for me, my main concerns are with the seemingly short sighted libertarian implementations that don't take into account the bad actors of this world. I think there are definitely some issues with our current financial system, but I think its like democracy in that it seems to be the least bad solution. I wouldn't want to live in a world without regulation of our financial markets. It is too easy for people to defraud the little guy and for criminal organizations to prosper. Do you think there are solutions in newer technologies for those concerns? I feel like both sides should be able to agree that there are pros and cons to the different technologies and use cases, that there are some that are better for the pro camp and less negative for the against camp. Maybe pushing harder to make the cream rise to the top could make these conversations less tribal and divisive? |
|
|
To be clear, that is absolutely not solved for Bitcoin, which still wastes energy at a disgusting rate. Some crypto things have shifted to non-proof-of-work approaches, usually proof of stake, but Bitcoin is still pumping out more CO2 than many countries.