- This topic has 37 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 months, 1 week ago by PopeyesGreenSpinach.
- Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205707DATY4944Participant
Why do you think there’s such a hard push against proof of work? Would media conglomerates push a “bad for the environment” narrative if it didn’t serve some kind of purpose? These are the same people who continue to refute climate change because the owners profit from oil extraction.
Proof of stake is not a true iteration on proof of work because it removes market externalities from the system. In proof of stake, there are no miners. The rich don’t actually have to spend any money to profit, they just stake it. The person who holds the most coins holds all the power.
In pow, miners have to spend money to buy new equipment and maintain it. Thus, their fortunes are used in the economy, creating a system that sustains itself by forcing those who maintain it to actually spend the asset they’re maintaining. This is not true of proof of stake, which actually encourages people to not use the currency at all.
I hear all kinds of pros for proof of stake, but I’ve never had someone directly refute the argument against it, that it does not have market externalities and thus is not a sustainable economic system.
I would love to hear some comments to that point specifically.
By debasing Proof of Work, the type of cryptocurrencies that can actually threaten world governments’ control over the monetary supply, they push crypto users to the less viable proof of stake chains. It also represents a classic divide and conquer tactic. Creating the division in philosophies between crypto users takes the target off the backs of controlling governments that are only trying to preserve their power in terms of monetary supply and the movement of funds.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205735Avs4life16
almost everything is bad for the environment depending on how it is managed and offset by other activities.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205727Onelinersandblues
There’s no narrative dude hahaha it’s actually bad for the environment. It is unsustainable long term, how is that a “narrative”?Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205728deathbyfish13
Hasn’t this already been proven false multiple times already?
I guess it doesn’t matter, the FUDs damage has been done and now it’s one of the main arguments people will go toThursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205729Jay_Bird_75
🤔🤔🤔Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205730Helen666_Keller
Both have their pros and cons. The element that gets people to use their pos coins is defi. Even though I don’t use eth at all I’ve still blown through a hoard of gas on most every other chain I’m onThursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205731Perfect_Ability_1190
Yes, but it still plays a role in the environmental narrative. Bitcoin and ETH pump a lot energy.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205732pippaman
on pointThursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205733brsbyrk
No.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205734tendrloin_aristocrat
ok fine.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205726Awhodothey
Also, mining is bad for the environment.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205736MaxLombax
PoW is objectively bad for the environment, but that’s not its main problem. It literally promotes more centralisation over time, as mining difficulty rises the barrier to entry for new miners gets higher and drives out existing miners until you end up with a select few entities with most of the power.
PoW systems are bad, the sooner the crypto community realises this the better, but there’s too much tribalism for that to ever happen.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205737eyespy1172
Absolutely. The whole environmental movement is to tighten control while using people’s emotions to do it.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205738Harucifer
If any decently sized government in the world wanted to ‘fuck around and find out’ with PoW and try to do 51% attacks on chains **it would be extremely easy.**
[Ethereum Classic was hit by several 51% attacks](https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/08/29/ethereum-classic-hit-by-third-51-attack-in-a-month/) **from ordinary people**. Imagine what a **GOVERNMENT** could do. Imagine if China or the CIA decided “Let’s 51% attack Bitcoin to stop it from disrupting finances”. You think it would take more than a few billions in Research & Development to disrupt it? You live in a fantasy world if you don’t think so.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205739sheltojb
No, it’s just bad for the environment. Don’t deflect.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205740Fookyurmum-anyday
I don’t know if it hurts the enviroment. What I do know is that mining certain coins like BTC is not energy efficient, which is a totally different subject. AND it will be important now that energy prices are skyrocketing in the whole world thanks to that F.J. Biden sanctions on F.V. Putin.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205741Stankoman
Just because something fills out two narratives, does not make it a conspiracy debasing BTC.
POW is dirty, very dirty. Saying its not is ignorant as fuck, and saying its stabilizing the grid is also moronic.
Is this narrative also debasing POW ? Yes, and it should.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205742engdeveloper
It uses a metric shit ton of electricity.
And is stupid. If you don’t get a good rate, you’ll go broke! (Especially now)Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205743pet2pet1982
Any POS is a potential centralised scam, and in a case of worldwide availability, it is a totalitarian dictatorship.
Only POW can be pure 100% democratic, in case POW algorithms utilised street-ready CPU of common purpose.
Example of such a POW is RandomX used by Monero.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205744PopeyesGreenSpinach
Mining is bad mkayThursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205716bikbar1
It is a propoganda to make people angry with Crypto.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205708Successful_Craft3076
Mining is bad for environment. Just look at the amount of energy used to mine one BTC. It is healthy to say governments are giving white check to petroleum giants which are much worst for environment. Double standard reinforcing the thesis that their real problem is not with the carbon footprint. But that doesn’t mean the whole concept of crypto carbon footprint is a lie. I guess with making mining less energy dependent this fud will be refuted.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205709BedazzlingBear
This argument is based on electricity consumption. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is bad for the environment regardless of its use. If crypto mining was done with renewable energy then nobody would complainThursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205710Ceago
“Bad for the environment” has turned into a blanket method of garnering public support against pretty much anything.Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 19:37 #205711anon43850
I don’t like to point fingers but I would argue crypto isn’t less important than gold mining and banking.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Related Forum Topics:
- → The whole “Cryptocurrency mining is bad for the environment” is just one of many giant gaslighting techniques by the government to blame the average Joe for being detrimental to the environment rather than mega corporations and their factories.
- → When it comes to pricing a market, don’t follow the current narrative, think ahead of the narrative. The current narrative is already priced in.
- → Crypto lender Celsius which recently declared bankruptcy owes more than $4.7 billion in crypto to its customers. Celsius plans to make up its deficit partly using newly minted bitcoins from its mining facility. Do you think Celsius will be able to fully compensate its customers?