Meta shareholders rejected the Bitcoin plan with less than 1% in favour. The proposal called Bitcoin a hedge against inflation and weak bonds. GameStop and Metaplanet are among firms copying Saylor’s Bitcoin play.
If bitcoin didn’t use 40 terawatts to mine and was more reasonable in its electricity demand then I don’t think that many people would care about it. It still wouldn’t make it useful but at least it wouldn’t be actively damaging the environment.
We might even be able to find a use for it at that point. But as it stands now the energy requirements essentially make the technology not worth it given the very minor benefits.
Wait but that’s like saying that as long as the world has at least one electric car the internal combustion engine can continue to exist without issue.
If the vast majority of cryptocurrencies are still power hungry and the most commonly used cryptocurrency is power hungry then the fact that some of the others are better doesn’t really help.
that’s like saying that as long as the world has at least one electric car the internal combustion engine can continue to exist without issue.
No. PoS (EV makers) are not supporting the existence of PoW (ICE vehicles). In fact, one builder made a deliberate planned move from PoW to PoS. All new builders are PoS.
the vast majority of cryptocurrencies are still power hungry
False. Remove Bitcoin (>100TWh) and the only PoW coin in the top 10 is DOGE (~4TWh).
Bitcoin maxis who dismiss all other blockchains as Alts are very much like climate deniers. They illogically block improvements and efficiencies in the Bitcoin protocol (e.g. block size increases).
However if enery usage is your main criticism then attacking PoS is like campaigning against wind or solar. We want PoS to completely replace PoW.
If bitcoin didn’t use 40 terawatts to mine and was more reasonable in its electricity demand then I don’t think that many people would care about it. It still wouldn’t make it useful but at least it wouldn’t be actively damaging the environment.
We might even be able to find a use for it at that point. But as it stands now the energy requirements essentially make the technology not worth it given the very minor benefits.
deleted by creator
This is an argument for renewables, not fot shitcanning POW.
deleted by creator
There are versions of cryptocurrencies that don’t use massive amounts of energy.
Pick anything launched from Ethereum onwards.
deleted by creator
You are glossing over 40% of a $3T market.
I’m not going to defend PoW (doge and monero are both pre Eth) but blockchain technology has moved on even if the fanboys haven’t.
deleted by creator
That’s as irrational as saying no-one can use EVs until we get rid of all ICE vehicles.
Wait but that’s like saying that as long as the world has at least one electric car the internal combustion engine can continue to exist without issue.
If the vast majority of cryptocurrencies are still power hungry and the most commonly used cryptocurrency is power hungry then the fact that some of the others are better doesn’t really help.
No. PoS (EV makers) are not supporting the existence of PoW (ICE vehicles). In fact, one builder made a deliberate planned move from PoW to PoS. All new builders are PoS.
False. Remove Bitcoin (>100TWh) and the only PoW coin in the top 10 is DOGE (~4TWh).
Oh great so if you remove bitcoin your argument works, trouble is, bitcoin exists
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Your dislike of PoW is totally understandable.
Bitcoin maxis who dismiss all other blockchains as Alts are very much like climate deniers. They illogically block improvements and efficiencies in the Bitcoin protocol (e.g. block size increases).
However if enery usage is your main criticism then attacking PoS is like campaigning against wind or solar. We want PoS to completely replace PoW.
And nobody uses those, so that argument is mute.
False.
80% of transactions occur on solana and BNB. Only 1% of crypto transactions are on Bitcoin, which is in 9th place.