This is typical anti-bitcoin rhetoric, it’s nothing new and not completely unfounded, but the author lacks any awareness of the true value of crypto currencies, makes no mention of proof of stake, and assumes that speculation somehow justifies outlawing trading because it’s now gambling.
A few points:
There are some interesting and somewhat out there justifications for the energy use, and there are a couple very simple ones:
1. Bitcoin emits less carbon than gold mining, and does the job of gold (as a store of value) to a much higher standard.
2. Proof of Stake could replace proof of work, eliminating any carbon emissions worth mentioning.
Bitcoin offers sound, secure, reliable money / store of value. The author elects not to even directly mention this because there is no good argument or replacement for this. If you say gold, read above.
The author believes he can just straw man serious bitcoiners (not the gamblers) into idealistic yet flawed cultists or something, when in reality the technology has no replacement, is greener than its competitor, and offers to the world, the service, and asset, of sound money.
The article appears in such bad faith (I’m willing to hear criticisms of crypto currencies, but only from those who demonstrate their ability to play with its basic mission statement and functionality; this article is pop-sci parroting) that I almost believe this is some kind of paid hit piece.
A few points: There are some interesting and somewhat out there justifications for the energy use, and there are a couple very simple ones: 1. Bitcoin emits less carbon than gold mining, and does the job of gold (as a store of value) to a much higher standard. 2. Proof of Stake could replace proof of work, eliminating any carbon emissions worth mentioning.
Bitcoin offers sound, secure, reliable money / store of value. The author elects not to even directly mention this because there is no good argument or replacement for this. If you say gold, read above.
The author believes he can just straw man serious bitcoiners (not the gamblers) into idealistic yet flawed cultists or something, when in reality the technology has no replacement, is greener than its competitor, and offers to the world, the service, and asset, of sound money.
The article appears in such bad faith (I’m willing to hear criticisms of crypto currencies, but only from those who demonstrate their ability to play with its basic mission statement and functionality; this article is pop-sci parroting) that I almost believe this is some kind of paid hit piece.