The free coinbase incentive money I have split as follows. (Note: I have not put a penny of personal Ā£Ā£Ā£ into this).
2 Likes
I was briefly wealthiest person on earth over the bank holiday weekend -
Crazy bug on exodus wallet 
Hereās my portfolio allocation
6 Likes
Even bitcoins mined from 100% renewable energy have got an adverse effect on the environment. That energy could be put into the power grid, lowering the consumption, increasing the offer, lowering the price and ultimately decreasing the use of fossil fuels. This conclusion can be easily reached by anyone, does not really take to be an electrical engineer.
And then, of course, the materials involved in manufacturing the mining rig and the energy plant. For something that has got essentially no use. Computing power going to waste and tonnes of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in the name of human greed.
You want to do own bitcoins and be rich? Yeah why not? Iād like to be rich too. But please at least carry the guilt.
5 Likes
You can say the same about pretty much anythingā¦ But letās look at gold since bitcoin is thought of as digital gold and break it down a bit.
Gold exploration, mining and storage completely dwarfs the energy bitcoin uses. Circa 50% of that demand is for investment purposes or central bank hoarding. Use cases where bitcoin could in the future be used instead.
There is literally no way to mine gold without excessive use of fossil fuels, unlike bitcoin.
Again this statement can apply to pretty much anything today, sadly.
So should those who invest in gold also carry the guilt? 
4 Likes
Yes, you should. Also, you can just use proof-stake and eliminate the whole mining waste shebang. Double Thinker is spot on with most arguments.
3 Likes
To be fair the mining sector and banking sector do also provide massive amount of jobs, materials and livelihoods that are essential to human lives 
Obviously they do cause issues but virtual mining is all about the quick buck.
I never said gold mining is environmentally friendly. At least gold has got some industrial uses positive for society, like being part of electronical circuits or healthcare instrumental. Speculation and jewellery are not included.
You seem to have justified the mining of bitcoin by criticising gold mining, although I did not mention gold once. That is a false dichotomy, a fallacy.
As I said, if you play the cryptocurrency game, please at least have (in plural) the decency of acknowledging the harm it does to the environment.
2 Likes
POS is definitely the way forward, but it wouldnāt exist without bitcoin.
Surely you see the issue in coming on to an investment forum and telling people they should feel guilty about a particular investment, while ignoring all the other examples that do greater damage to the environment???
If your argument is that we live in a capitalist society run on greed - then sign me up to the revolution 
but letās not pick and choose where to apply the same logic!
2 Likes
The environmental argument against crypto is laughable at beast.
We live in a consumeristic world that is been exploited to guarantee our high standard of living. We have destroyed biodiversity, polluted the world with plastic waste, intoxicated the air and much much more.
People are buying so much not sustainable crap. Everyone order from Amazon, everyone order take away, everyone buy clothes to show off. We throw so many food in the bin when people still die of hunger. Donāt even get me started on the food industry, you want to eat strawberry on December that travel half of the globe to be on your table. But yes the problem is Bitcoin.
Do I feel guilty to own Polkadot and Helium?Not all, they are not been mined and they donāt waste electricity.
Do I feel guilty to own Ethereum? Not at all it will become energy efficient in a year or so.
Do I feel guilty to be human? Yes indeed. Do I feel guilty every time I eat meat? Yes indeed.
DO YOU?
1 Like
I was replying to that article posted above, because it I found it profoundly biased.
1 Like
More false dichotomies. I never denied all those issues. And the fact they exist, which I agree, does not automatically justify bitcoin mining.
Regarding the other cryptocurrencies, I cannot comment. I do not know how they work. But once again, that article specifically talked about bitcoin. And so did my reply.
1 Like
That in a nutshell is the problem People saying but we already F%$Ā£ the planet so this new thing is ok. 2 wrongs donāt make a right and bitcoin is a needless waste of energy really. Other things that cause pollution give you are real item and not some virtual thing that doesnāt actually exist.
That said I believe you are probably correct regarding other crypto and I am sure there will be ways to not use energy which then makes that argument void and you are 100% right on the rest.
Thatās fair enough, respect your opinion.
Sorry if my reply seemed abrupt - my puppy was biting my toes so I didnāt proof read 
2 Likes
More tunnel vision. You are talking about environment and energy consumption focusing on a single issue. Sustainability is a multivariate issue and I believe you cannot compartmentalise taking into account only a small fraction of the problem.
Comparison and dichotomies are not necessary evil or false. You can use rhetoric as much as you want but things are interconnected, we do not live in a vacuum.
Again, I feel much more guilty eating meat and knowing my bank support fossil fuel than owning Bitcoin. Do you?
This topic is about cryptocurrencies. And the article I was referring to was talking about bitcoin and its energy consumption. Which might not be the biggest, but it is a big one, and bigger every day.
I never engage into dialectic battles regarding the functionality of bitcoin. They tend to become quite visceral. There are supporters, they have got their reasons. There are detractors, they have got theirs. I have got my own opinion.
So why did I this time? Because I do care a lot about the environment and wanted to give a different point of view to that article. I am not here to tell people invest or donāt in bitcoin, but if you do, at least understand you are contributing to carbon dioxide emissions.
Out of the three, I personally feel bitcoin is the worse, yes. If you mesurare the ratio āUse for societyā / āCO2 emissionsā, bitcoin is the lowest scorer. Basically zero. That numerator is my subjective opinion, I could be wrong. That denominator is a undeniable fact.
2 Likes
And this is exactly why I commented on this topic. To do my bit in stopping people from believing nonsense articles like the one above me.
4 Likes
As you say use for society is a very subjective metric, how do you assess it or operationalise āuseā. You could use the value people assign to things, in that case with BTC you donāt get 0. But again we are all biased in supporting our own opinion.
If you care about the environment you donāt have to measure any ratio. The only measure you need is CO2 emission and certainly the one from the meat industry CANNOT be sustainable.
The sad true in my opinion is that we are exploiting the world to guarantee our standard of living, which are nowhere close to be sustainable. Bitcoin is a scape goat.
The biggest contributor of carbone dioxide emission is the human. Control population growth, readjust standard of living (including our diet), eliminate the consumeristic mindset that drives many companies. Bitcoin is a drop in the ocean. We are the one causing climate change.