|
|
|
|
|
|
by Quindecillion
1033 days ago
|
|
|
Yikes... digiconomist. Literally zero credibility there. His name is Alex de Vries and he works for the dutch central bank. To my knowledge, very little of his blog posts have made its way to peer review and academic publication. For some reason that doesn't stop his work from being distributed widely as an authoritative source on this topic. This paper has it's own problems with conflicts of interest, but it has gained traction recently and is worth a read to see things from another perspective. https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/3/35 Could also look into the work of Troy Cross, Margot Paez, and Daniel Batten who are climate activists and pro-Bitcoin because of the incentives it provides around building out renewable energy and mitigating methane emissions. And NY Times is notoriously anti-Bitcoin, to the point you have to ask, "do they have an agenda"? |
|
|
Like most defenses of bitcoin’s carbon footprint, the paper you linked makes the case that theoretically maybe bitcoin could be carbon negative in the future if certain things happen. If you look at the actual current source of power for miners weighted by hashrate in the US, it’s mostly coal and natural gas. Among companies that don’t have to report this, such as miners in Russia and Kazakstan, it’s likely as bad or worse.
> And NY Times is notoriously anti-Bitcoin, to the point you have to ask, "do they have an agenda"?
They have also published a lot of things that have been criticized as being too pro-crypto (such as the Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto).