It was supposed to be a financial revolution. Instead, crypto has become an environmentally disastrous gift to con artists, says academic David A Banks
The more I think of it, the more I come to the conclusion that cryptobros looked at the banking system and broader financial sector, correctly figured out there are a bunch of serious problems with them, and then misidentified the underlying problem as technology used instead of greed.
They are basically focusing implementation details instead of figuring out how to fix the actual source of the problem.
I guess part of the idea way taking the power away from the greedy people, which fixes one small part of the problem.
Part of it was fixing the implementation details, which solves another part of the problem. But yes a purely technical solution is not enough on its own. Bitcoin is not a magic bullet to solve greed. My answer below talks a bit about that.
It’s way worse than that. Cryptocurrencies are a way to supercharge greedy and corrupt people, by giving them a powerful unregulated tool to play with. And all at a tiny cost of emitting thousands of tons of CO2 at a time when parts of India are already starting to become uninhabitable.
How many emissions do you think millions of bank employees cause with their cars, flights, heated houses, and general consumption? Particularly as most banks are located in the U.S, which has the highest pollution levels in the world. Surely thats much worse than mining farms.
Look, cryptobros have been pushing cryptocurrencies using cherry-picked “arguments” for years. I don’t see why this can only work one way?
On a more serious note, I am quite tired of the moving of goalposts practiced by cryptocurrency shills. “Oh, no, that only applies to some coins, not all of them!”, “hey, that one also only affects some blockchains!”, “no no, you can’t say that, there’s this <edge case> coin out there that happens to not have this one specific problem”.
Somehow problems they point out with the financial sector are supposed to apply to the whole sector, but problems with cryptocurrencies are only ever relevant to one very specific coin and in no way should reflect on the whole scene.
Give me a break. 🙄
Also, nice evasion there, just ignoring the main part of my post, which was: the fact that some other industry happens to generate emissions doesn’t make it okay to create a completely new source of emissions.
Somehow problems they point out with the financial sector are supposed to apply to the whole sector, but problems with cryptocurrencies are only ever relevant to one very specific coin and in no way should reflect on the whole scene.
That’s what you were doing though. Cherry-picking faults from many different currencies.
Your original point was that crypto-currencies have no value and are ponzi schemes. Have you been convinced to change your mind about those two things? They are concrete statements, strong arguments. So they are easy to prove/disprove.
I’m afraid the discussion has gotten too broad now. You would need to start a new thread for each point. Otherwise it becomes circular. For example several or your points here I’ve already answered in another part of the thread.
The more I think of it, the more I come to the conclusion that cryptobros looked at the banking system and broader financial sector, correctly figured out there are a bunch of serious problems with them, and then misidentified the underlying problem as technology used instead of greed.
They are basically focusing implementation details instead of figuring out how to fix the actual source of the problem.
That’s a good way of looking at it.
I guess part of the idea way taking the power away from the greedy people, which fixes one small part of the problem.
Part of it was fixing the implementation details, which solves another part of the problem. But yes a purely technical solution is not enough on its own. Bitcoin is not a magic bullet to solve greed. My answer below talks a bit about that.
It’s way worse than that. Cryptocurrencies are a way to supercharge greedy and corrupt people, by giving them a powerful unregulated tool to play with. And all at a tiny cost of emitting thousands of tons of CO2 at a time when parts of India are already starting to become uninhabitable.
How many emissions do you think millions of bank employees cause with their cars, flights, heated houses, and general consumption? Particularly as most banks are located in the U.S, which has the highest pollution levels in the world. Surely thats much worse than mining farms.
This is hardly a reason to add more to that, is it?
Seriously. 🙄
Plus, the financial sector can process thousands of transactions globally per second. Bitcoin, on the other hand, about (checks notes) seven.
Here you go again, taking a weakness of a single cryptocurrency, and pretending that it applies to all coins. No point arguing with this nonsense.
Look, cryptobros have been pushing cryptocurrencies using cherry-picked “arguments” for years. I don’t see why this can only work one way?
On a more serious note, I am quite tired of the moving of goalposts practiced by cryptocurrency shills. “Oh, no, that only applies to some coins, not all of them!”, “hey, that one also only affects some blockchains!”, “no no, you can’t say that, there’s this <edge case> coin out there that happens to not have this one specific problem”.
Somehow problems they point out with the financial sector are supposed to apply to the whole sector, but problems with cryptocurrencies are only ever relevant to one very specific coin and in no way should reflect on the whole scene.
Give me a break. 🙄
Also, nice evasion there, just ignoring the main part of my post, which was: the fact that some other industry happens to generate emissions doesn’t make it okay to create a completely new source of emissions.
That’s what you were doing though. Cherry-picking faults from many different currencies.
Your original point was that crypto-currencies have no value and are ponzi schemes. Have you been convinced to change your mind about those two things? They are concrete statements, strong arguments. So they are easy to prove/disprove.
I’m afraid the discussion has gotten too broad now. You would need to start a new thread for each point. Otherwise it becomes circular. For example several or your points here I’ve already answered in another part of the thread.