Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

NFTs – what do we know about them?

1…457910…19

Comments

  • NeuMNeuM

    @u0421793 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    @dendy: you keep referring to concerns about blockchain’s carbon footprint as rubbish but haven’t seen anything you have posted that backs that up. The comparison that you posted compares total energy use not transactional use. Yes, the global banking system uses enormous amounts of energy...it also is involved in orders of magnitude more transactions than bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies combined. To compare the energy use, you need to do comparisons on the basis of energy per transaction.

    All the analyses I have seen, even from ardently pro-crypto folks, has been that if you scaled crypto up handle the magnitude of transactions of the global banking system that it would use far more energy...that is why they keep promising that at some future time there will be a breakthrough that will make it more efficient. But there is no evidence that such a breakthrough is imminent.

    Someone disagreeing with you doesn’t make them guilty of confirmation bias. They might be..but you might also be experiencing confirmation bias. The thing about confirmation bias is that it leads a person to think they are correctly interpreting facts. Just because an article is published by what you call mainstream media doesn’t make it false.

    Resorting to “it comes from mainstream media so it must be fault” isn’t a rigorous argument.

    Some guy (professor or not) saying “the media’s claims about the carbon footprint are bogus” is not proof that claim is correct.

    I’m not concerned about energy use per transaction or as a side-effect of crypto mining because we’re talking about computing here. Computing power increases as energy consumption reduces on average every 18 months (Moore’s Law).

    It won’t be long before we have desktop computers with the computing power of a human brain (with an equivalent number of neural connections) in about 10–15 years and these computers will sip tiny amounts of power. In about 20-25 years a desktop computer will have the computing power of ALL human brains combined. In other words, it’s pointless to fixate on power consumption since energy consumption and computing efficiency continue to improve dramatically in a predictable way.

    Actually, Moore’s Law is starting to end. Even Charles Moore himself thinks within this decade. Here’s an interesting article I’ve not read all of yet (or ever will) but there’s an interesting section about halfway down about how it all changed when computing went mobile (which is apropos to this forum) https://www.nature.com/news/the-chips-are-down-for-moore-s-law-1.19338

    Moore may think it’s ending, but it’s still keeping pace with some of the recent 7nm and 5nm innovations by TSMC.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @u0421793 said:
    There are existing and extant POS mainnets, for blockchained which never were POW by design. It is increasingly looking more feasible that the POW legacy mainnets will stay doing what they’re doing (ie, being a money) but will be left behind by the POS mainnets many of which are focused on a utility other than being valuable in money terms.

    To be honest, they’re the interesting ones. At the moment it’s a bit confusing as the big buzz whenever you go to anything blockchain related is how much various cryptocurrencies are worth this minute, and everyone gets swept up by that kind of euphoria. Bitcoin can only ever be used as a money, Eth originally had the idea of contracts by design but still, it’s primarily more or less a way of paying for things.

    There are vast amounts of ‘little’ cryptos which are viewed as rubbish by crypto investors (who concern themselves only, or mainly, with bitcoin) and they’re worth fractions of a penny per whatever coin they are. However, those are the interesting ones. Not all will win, some will dwindle, but some will probably end up being used in the background for this or that service or product, nobody will know overtly, it’ll just be the ‘plumbing’ used in that system for whatever it is designed for.

    Tesos were mentioned above, and another one that interests me is Tomochain https://tomochain.com/ – these are mostly serious scientific ventures, and I think the ‘currency’ side of things is a bit of a distraction for them. Having said that, not all small coins are serious. Dogecoin was started as a bit of a joke, using the source code to bitcoin, and it sort of took off and has quite a bit of value now. Stupid, I know, but you know, early days. But as I say, the ‘non-money’ uses are the ones that interest me (and inherently, most of those will be POS or some other non-mining non-energy-intensive way of doing their thing).

    I predict in the near or slightly less near future, BTC and ETH will continue doing what they’re doing, but will increasingly be bypassed by more efficient mainnets, some of which will become as strong as BTC or ETH. In future generations time, BTC will be an antique (still there, still valuable (all the more, as the scarcity will be defined by then)) but no new development will happen on those schemes – it’ll all be with the newer ones.

    I take it you’ve looked into Hashgraph?

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited March 2021

    @u0421793 said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @richardyot said:
    Maybe it's just whales all the way down:

    This makes it even more of a work of emergent modern art. The post modern meta meme-ry of it all. Such brilliant.

    Everything is “strange”, “risky”, a “scam” or “unworkable” until it’s not. LOL. After nearly ten years of being skeptical (but always interested) in cryptocoins and all things related I found myself suddenly agreeing with the model and jumped in. NFT’s represent the beginning of a new way of thinking for some people.

    I just can’t get into it or relate to this stuff at all. I wish I didn't feel so old at ‘just’ 46 and all this actually felt like good news.

    Haha. I’m older than you and I was very skeptical of all things crypto until I looked into it more deeply and started to ask fundamental questions about how value is determined, what is “money” and who benefits from the systems as we know (or we think we know) them.

    I do get crypto currency but the idea of paying money to connect an image to a ‘wallet’ (or buy one that already is ? Etc?) ala NFT. Eh, I don’t get it. That kind of ownership just seems like how baby ducks can bond with a sock puppet.

    Yes, I’m very unclear on what the connection is with NFTs to a work of art as things stand today. I think the reason a lot of NFT artwork (not all) is basic low-effort nonsense is that it’s a toe-in-the-water for everyone.

    What if I minted a song? A new mix of one of my existing songs that has not been released yet?
    What if I minted an ebook? An EPUB? Or even, each chapter as a separate NFT?

    What happens in the future with me, the works, and what I can and can’t do with it? I think these unknowns are why nobody’s putting out anything too valuable or impressive, just casual exercises at best.

    A willingness to appear foolish always precedes serious innovation. NFT’s are an experiment which will result in more experimentation, refinements and ultimately widespread adoption if the experiments are successful.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @dendy said:
    @espiegel123

    Ok let's back to roots.

    Bitcoin mining doesn't produce directly any CO2 or methane. It just uses electricity. So, i guess by "carbon footprint"
    opponents are meaning carbon footprint of sources of that electricity. We should put away the fact that 70% of mining runs on renewable sources, mostly hydroelectricity (fact) or geogermal (fact). But let's say this is not important for my following question.

    There is one very basic misunderstansing about how electricity is produced, distributed and used (which correct undertanding is game changer for this question)

    Let me ask you one crucial question. Do you think - if in this moment all cryptomining on planet would be stopped, all that powerplants (atomic, hydro, solar, wind, coil, etc) starts to produce LESS electricity, because mining operationa stops "consume it", hence there will be less CO2 produced ?

    This is how you think it works ?

    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited March 2021

    @espiegel123 said:

    @dendy said:
    @espiegel123

    Ok let's back to roots.

    Bitcoin mining doesn't produce directly any CO2 or methane. It just uses electricity. So, i guess by "carbon footprint"
    opponents are meaning carbon footprint of sources of that electricity. We should put away the fact that 70% of mining runs on renewable sources, mostly hydroelectricity (fact) or geogermal (fact). But let's say this is not important for my following question.

    There is one very basic misunderstansing about how electricity is produced, distributed and used (which correct undertanding is game changer for this question)

    Let me ask you one crucial question. Do you think - if in this moment all cryptomining on planet would be stopped, all that powerplants (atomic, hydro, solar, wind, coil, etc) starts to produce LESS electricity, because mining operationa stops "consume it", hence there will be less CO2 produced ?

    This is how you think it works ?

    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    Look into Hashgraph. Power consumption isn’t an issue with it. Also, as computing gets more powerful at the same price, it uses less electricity. Economics is the driver here, not electricity supply.

    Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashgraph, https://hedera.com/

    Also... why bash South Dakota’s governor but not mention New York’s Cuomo? It’s not productive to drag politics into these discussions.

  • wimwim
    edited March 2021

    @espiegel123 said:
    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    I'm not going to get into this debate but it's an interesting read. @espiegel123 - to help me understand: is it your feeling that all energy (electricity) use increases carbon footprint? Does this include to you hydro-electric and geothermal, and electricity from sources that would normally be wasted, such as converting natural gas normally released to the atmosphere or burned when oil mining?

    If so, can you educate me as to how this type of energy use affects climate change? This is a sincere question. Not meant to be provocative.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @dendy said:
    @espiegel123

    Ok let's back to roots.

    Bitcoin mining doesn't produce directly any CO2 or methane. It just uses electricity. So, i guess by "carbon footprint"
    opponents are meaning carbon footprint of sources of that electricity. We should put away the fact that 70% of mining runs on renewable sources, mostly hydroelectricity (fact) or geogermal (fact). But let's say this is not important for my following question.

    There is one very basic misunderstansing about how electricity is produced, distributed and used (which correct undertanding is game changer for this question)

    Let me ask you one crucial question. Do you think - if in this moment all cryptomining on planet would be stopped, all that powerplants (atomic, hydro, solar, wind, coil, etc) starts to produce LESS electricity, because mining operationa stops "consume it", hence there will be less CO2 produced ?

    This is how you think it works ?

    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    Look into Hashgraph. Power consumption isn’t an issue with it. Also, as computing gets more powerful at the same price, it uses less electricity. Economics is the driver here, not electricity supply.

    Also... why bash South Dakota’s governor but not mention New York’s Cuomo? It’s not productive to drag politics into these discussions.

    The point wasn’t a political one. I was pointing out the same error in argument as Dendy was making. It is a fairly easy to understand and unnuanced instance of a particular error in reasoning and was not chosen for a political reason.

    The notion that economics drives good or sound policy is, sadly, not well-supported by history. In fact, our current environmental morass is evidence of how catastrophically poor decisions where the long-run is concerned is driven by decisions that economic sense in the short-term.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @dendy said:
    @espiegel123

    Ok let's back to roots.

    Bitcoin mining doesn't produce directly any CO2 or methane. It just uses electricity. So, i guess by "carbon footprint"
    opponents are meaning carbon footprint of sources of that electricity. We should put away the fact that 70% of mining runs on renewable sources, mostly hydroelectricity (fact) or geogermal (fact). But let's say this is not important for my following question.

    There is one very basic misunderstansing about how electricity is produced, distributed and used (which correct undertanding is game changer for this question)

    Let me ask you one crucial question. Do you think - if in this moment all cryptomining on planet would be stopped, all that powerplants (atomic, hydro, solar, wind, coil, etc) starts to produce LESS electricity, because mining operationa stops "consume it", hence there will be less CO2 produced ?

    This is how you think it works ?

    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    Look into Hashgraph. Power consumption isn’t an issue with it. Also, as computing gets more powerful at the same price, it uses less electricity. Economics is the driver here, not electricity supply.

    Also... why bash South Dakota’s governor but not mention New York’s Cuomo? It’s not productive to drag politics into these discussions.

    The point wasn’t a political one. I was pointing out the same error in argument as Dendy was making. It is a fairly easy to understand and unnuanced instance of a particular error in reasoning and was not chosen for a political reason.

    The notion that economics drives good or sound policy is, sadly, not well-supported by history. In fact, our current environmental morass is evidence of how catastrophically poor decisions where the long-run is concerned is driven by decisions that economic sense in the short-term.

    I’m afraid we’re wading into philosophical waters which cannot be forded because they are matters of personal belief. All people are self-interested and all people make economic decisions on an individual level. Decisions which make economic sense last longer than those which do not make economic sense. Regrettably, “bad” policies also last generations until they are no longer economically feasible. None of these things are addressable via our comments on this forum.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @wim said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    I'm not going to get into this debate but it's an interesting read. @espiegel123 - to help me understand: is it your feeling that all energy (electricity) use increases carbon footprint? Does this include to you hydro-electric and geothermal, and electricity from sources that would normally be wasted, such as converting natural gas normally released to the atmosphere or burned when oil mining?

    If so, can you educate me as to how this type of energy use affects climate change? This is a sincere question. Not meant to be provocative.

    Do I think using electricity that has been generated but would otherwise be wasted increases carbon footprint? Is that what you are asking? If so, the answer would be no.

    But the question is also more or less irrelevant to whether the current mainstream crypto technologies are scalable.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @dendy said:
    @espiegel123

    Ok let's back to roots.

    Bitcoin mining doesn't produce directly any CO2 or methane. It just uses electricity. So, i guess by "carbon footprint"
    opponents are meaning carbon footprint of sources of that electricity. We should put away the fact that 70% of mining runs on renewable sources, mostly hydroelectricity (fact) or geogermal (fact). But let's say this is not important for my following question.

    There is one very basic misunderstansing about how electricity is produced, distributed and used (which correct undertanding is game changer for this question)

    Let me ask you one crucial question. Do you think - if in this moment all cryptomining on planet would be stopped, all that powerplants (atomic, hydro, solar, wind, coil, etc) starts to produce LESS electricity, because mining operationa stops "consume it", hence there will be less CO2 produced ?

    This is how you think it works ?

    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    Look into Hashgraph. Power consumption isn’t an issue with it. Also, as computing gets more powerful at the same price, it uses less electricity. Economics is the driver here, not electricity supply.

    Also... why bash South Dakota’s governor but not mention New York’s Cuomo? It’s not productive to drag politics into these discussions.

    The point wasn’t a political one. I was pointing out the same error in argument as Dendy was making. It is a fairly easy to understand and unnuanced instance of a particular error in reasoning and was not chosen for a political reason.

    The notion that economics drives good or sound policy is, sadly, not well-supported by history. In fact, our current environmental morass is evidence of how catastrophically poor decisions where the long-run is concerned is driven by decisions that economic sense in the short-term.

    I’m afraid we’re wading into philosophical waters which cannot be forded because they are matters of personal belief. All people are self-interested and all people make economic decisions on an individual level. Decisions which make economic sense last longer than those which do not make economic sense. Regrettably, “bad” policies also last generations until they are no longer economically feasible. None of these things are addressable via our comments on this forum.

    I don’t think there is anything philosophical about the statement that short-term economic thinking has led to many catastrophic in the long-run. I believe that is an easily documentable fact.

    Such catastrophe will ultimately be economic but may happen decades or centuries after the people that made the decisions are long dead.

    Appealing to the notion that good economic decisions (meaning the long-run that includes centuries from now) drives good policy seems to me to be based on a confounding of what one means ... by failing to acknowledge that optimizing for near and mid-term economic gain may lead to decisions that cause economic or human catastrophe in the long-run.

    If one believes that good economic decisions are those that lead to the greatest economic efficiency, I’d suggest that such a belief system ignores the impact on humanity and is more a statement of one’s belief system (to which one is certainly entitled) than an argument in favor of good economic decisions being inherently correct.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited March 2021

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @dendy said:
    @espiegel123

    Ok let's back to roots.

    Bitcoin mining doesn't produce directly any CO2 or methane. It just uses electricity. So, i guess by "carbon footprint"
    opponents are meaning carbon footprint of sources of that electricity. We should put away the fact that 70% of mining runs on renewable sources, mostly hydroelectricity (fact) or geogermal (fact). But let's say this is not important for my following question.

    There is one very basic misunderstansing about how electricity is produced, distributed and used (which correct undertanding is game changer for this question)

    Let me ask you one crucial question. Do you think - if in this moment all cryptomining on planet would be stopped, all that powerplants (atomic, hydro, solar, wind, coil, etc) starts to produce LESS electricity, because mining operationa stops "consume it", hence there will be less CO2 produced ?

    This is how you think it works ?

    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    Look into Hashgraph. Power consumption isn’t an issue with it. Also, as computing gets more powerful at the same price, it uses less electricity. Economics is the driver here, not electricity supply.

    Also... why bash South Dakota’s governor but not mention New York’s Cuomo? It’s not productive to drag politics into these discussions.

    The point wasn’t a political one. I was pointing out the same error in argument as Dendy was making. It is a fairly easy to understand and unnuanced instance of a particular error in reasoning and was not chosen for a political reason.

    The notion that economics drives good or sound policy is, sadly, not well-supported by history. In fact, our current environmental morass is evidence of how catastrophically poor decisions where the long-run is concerned is driven by decisions that economic sense in the short-term.

    I’m afraid we’re wading into philosophical waters which cannot be forded because they are matters of personal belief. All people are self-interested and all people make economic decisions on an individual level. Decisions which make economic sense last longer than those which do not make economic sense. Regrettably, “bad” policies also last generations until they are no longer economically feasible. None of these things are addressable via our comments on this forum.

    I don’t think there is anything philosophical about the statement that short-term economic thinking has led to many catastrophic in the long-run. I believe that is an easily documentable fact.

    Such catastrophe will ultimately be economic but may happen decades or centuries after the people that made the decisions are long dead.

    Appealing to the notion that good economic decisions (meaning the long-run that includes centuries from now) drives good policy seems to me to be based on a confounding of what one means ... by failing to acknowledge that optimizing for near and mid-term economic gain may lead to decisions that cause economic or human catastrophe in the long-run.

    If one believes that good economic decisions are those that lead to the greatest economic efficiency, I’d suggest that such a belief system ignores the impact on humanity and is more a statement of one’s belief system (to which one is certainly entitled) than an argument in favor of good economic decisions being inherently correct.

    “ If one believes that good economic decisions are those that lead to the greatest economic efficiency, I’d suggest that such a belief system ignores the impact on humanity and is more a statement of one’s belief system (to which one is certainly entitled) than an argument in favor of good economic decisions being inherently correct.”

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. There are only individuals making decisions in their own interest. There is no such thing as a universal truth or greater good. Our opinions are “correct” because we each believe our opinion is correct.

  • AudioGusAudioGus

  • wimwim

    @wim said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    I'm not going to get into this debate but it's an interesting read. @espiegel123 - to help me understand: is it your feeling that all energy (electricity) use increases carbon footprint? Does this include to you hydro-electric and geothermal, and electricity from sources that would normally be wasted, such as converting natural gas normally released to the atmosphere or burned when oil mining?

    If so, can you educate me as to how this type of energy use affects climate change? This is a sincere question. Not meant to be provocative.

    Do I think using electricity that has been generated but would otherwise be wasted increases carbon footprint? Is that what you are asking? If so, the answer would be no.

    Actually no. You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet. So I was wondering if there was more to it than I know.

    I've no facts about how much of crypto mining electricity comes from carbon producing sources, but I have read many things that indicate a good portion comes from what I would consider non carbon producing sources. I've also read some things indicating much of that is from sources where there is excess capacity. This makes sense to me as excess capacity implies low cost, which is essential for such an activity.

    I was just trying to get a read on whether I'm missing some fundamental of the climate change equation that postulates all energy usage contributes to carbon footprint in some way. I'm pretty (willfully, I'll admit) ignorant on the climate change debate.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited March 2021

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @dendy said:
    @espiegel123

    Ok let's back to roots.

    Bitcoin mining doesn't produce directly any CO2 or methane. It just uses electricity. So, i guess by "carbon footprint"
    opponents are meaning carbon footprint of sources of that electricity. We should put away the fact that 70% of mining runs on renewable sources, mostly hydroelectricity (fact) or geogermal (fact). But let's say this is not important for my following question.

    There is one very basic misunderstansing about how electricity is produced, distributed and used (which correct undertanding is game changer for this question)

    Let me ask you one crucial question. Do you think - if in this moment all cryptomining on planet would be stopped, all that powerplants (atomic, hydro, solar, wind, coil, etc) starts to produce LESS electricity, because mining operationa stops "consume it", hence there will be less CO2 produced ?

    This is how you think it works ?

    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    Look into Hashgraph. Power consumption isn’t an issue with it. Also, as computing gets more powerful at the same price, it uses less electricity. Economics is the driver here, not electricity supply.

    Also... why bash South Dakota’s governor but not mention New York’s Cuomo? It’s not productive to drag politics into these discussions.

    The point wasn’t a political one. I was pointing out the same error in argument as Dendy was making. It is a fairly easy to understand and unnuanced instance of a particular error in reasoning and was not chosen for a political reason.

    The notion that economics drives good or sound policy is, sadly, not well-supported by history. In fact, our current environmental morass is evidence of how catastrophically poor decisions where the long-run is concerned is driven by decisions that economic sense in the short-term.

    I’m afraid we’re wading into philosophical waters which cannot be forded because they are matters of personal belief. All people are self-interested and all people make economic decisions on an individual level. Decisions which make economic sense last longer than those which do not make economic sense. Regrettably, “bad” policies also last generations until they are no longer economically feasible. None of these things are addressable via our comments on this forum.

    I don’t think there is anything philosophical about the statement that short-term economic thinking has led to many catastrophic in the long-run. I believe that is an easily documentable fact.

    Such catastrophe will ultimately be economic but may happen decades or centuries after the people that made the decisions are long dead.

    Appealing to the notion that good economic decisions (meaning the long-run that includes centuries from now) drives good policy seems to me to be based on a confounding of what one means ... by failing to acknowledge that optimizing for near and mid-term economic gain may lead to decisions that cause economic or human catastrophe in the long-run.

    If one believes that good economic decisions are those that lead to the greatest economic efficiency, I’d suggest that such a belief system ignores the impact on humanity and is more a statement of one’s belief system (to which one is certainly entitled) than an argument in favor of good economic decisions being inherently correct.

    “ If one believes that good economic decisions are those that lead to the greatest economic efficiency, I’d suggest that such a belief system ignores the impact on humanity and is more a statement of one’s belief system (to which one is certainly entitled) than an argument in favor of good economic decisions being inherently correct.”

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. There are only individuals making decisions in their own interest. There is no such thing as a universal truth or greater good.

    @AudioGus said:

    :smiley: LOL.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @wim said:

    @wim said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    I'm not going to get into this debate but it's an interesting read. @espiegel123 - to help me understand: is it your feeling that all energy (electricity) use increases carbon footprint? Does this include to you hydro-electric and geothermal, and electricity from sources that would normally be wasted, such as converting natural gas normally released to the atmosphere or burned when oil mining?

    If so, can you educate me as to how this type of energy use affects climate change? This is a sincere question. Not meant to be provocative.

    Do I think using electricity that has been generated but would otherwise be wasted increases carbon footprint? Is that what you are asking? If so, the answer would be no.

    Actually no. You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet. So I was wondering if there was more to it than I know.

    I've no facts about how much of crypto mining electricity comes from carbon producing sources, but I have read many things that indicate a good portion comes from what I would consider non carbon producing sources. I've also read some things indicating much of that is from sources where there is excess capacity. This makes sense to me as excess capacity implies low cost, which is essential for such an activity.

    I was just trying to get a read on whether I'm missing some fundamental of the climate change equation that postulates all energy usage contributes to carbon footprint in some way. I'm pretty (willfully, I'll admit) ignorant on the climate change debate.

    “ You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet.”

    That is impossible to determine. Would things be different if human beings still lived in caves? Would “the planet” be better off if we did X versus Y? These are unanswerable theoreticals.

  • dendydendy
    edited March 2021

    @espiegel123

    Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Ok, not some - 70% of them. Thing is, miners are always on hunt for most cheap electricity.Most cheap is located there, where it is abundant (it means power plans were designed significantly exceeding demand in given locality). Which, coincidently, are in most case renewable sources (especially hydropower, geotermal power, wind power, solar power). They're pragmatic, if somewhere starts rise price of electricity, they pack whole operation and move at different place. Luckily, most costly electricity is from coal and gas burning, so this is not much interesting for miners.

    As you know, storing of electricity is problematic. It needs to be used immediately when it is produced. It cannot be also transported on too big distances because there are huge losses (about 8% of world produced electricity is lost during transportation, which is btw. a LOT LOT more than amount of electricity needed for Bitcoin mining).

    So, ironically, bitcoin mining helps to use abundant electricity for something meaningful (monetary information), electricity which would be normally wasted / lost. It may help in future stabilise electricity from sources like wind or solar which are very variable (sometimes they are giving huge abundance, in other cases they are giving almost nothing) - because you can anytime turn on or off mining operation without any losses (this is very unique and not available basically in any industry), mining operations are great for regulating such power sources, making them more stable, thus more interesting for states and private sector to build such sources.
    (* if you don't see that advantage, let me know, i will elaborate more in detail about this concept)

    Your question about whether stopping crypto mining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Big misunderstanding, which i see often in articles of "respected" mainstream media. Number of processed transactions is totally unrelated to power consumption for mining. In theory you can run whole world bitcoin network with just single mining computer and it will process same number of transactions like it is processing now or it will be 100 years from now. Mining power is need for making network safe, but has zero impact on number of processed transactions. This means, needed mining power basically correlates with bitcoin PRICE - when price goes up, ideally you need also hash power go up to have network safe. Current available hash power significantly exceeds security limit considering current price of Bitcoin, thats why Bitcoin network is considered as most safe available blockchain.

    Scalability is different discussion, unrelated to power consumption. In short term - for scalability there is developed "lightning network" (partially it's already running) which is layer 2 above main bitcoin network. To explain it in simple way, think about core bitcoin network (which is running on PoW mining) as network of banks - so every processed transaction is like inter-bank clearing system in traditional banking, and lightning network is equivalent to VISA or PAYPAL in traditional financial system.

    Lightning network doesn't run on PoW, it is designed to be capable of processing extreme amount of operation per second (in theory millions or even billions per seconds - where VISA is capable just about 60000 per second) with near to zero payment feeds.

    Bitcoin network itself then processes just about 2700 transactions per block, and every block is mined every 10 minutes. Which is btw. still dramatically faster than classical banking, where clearing operation between two banks usually took 2 days (and it is not processed through weekends)

    Now do you see the advantages ?

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.
    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    Hope now you understand this is not the case. This opinion originates in lack of knowledge about how it really works (don't feel bad, as i said this misunderstanding is topic 1 in basically almost all big mainstream articles, wondering than even after years they are not capable to learn how it really works)

  • wimwim
    edited March 2021

    @NeuM said:

    Actually no. You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet. So I was wondering if there was more to it than I know.

    “ You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet.”

    That is impossible to determine. Would things be different if human beings still lived in caves? Would “the planet” be better off if we did X versus Y? These are unanswerable theoreticals.

    Of course it's impossible to determine. That wasn't my point in asking the question of @espiegel123.
    I don't understand the point you are making above. If it's important then I'd like to understand.

  • NeuMNeuM

    For clarification, PoW = “Proof of work” and PoS = “Proof of stake”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_work

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_stake

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @wim said:

    @wim said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    I'm not going to get into this debate but it's an interesting read. @espiegel123 - to help me understand: is it your feeling that all energy (electricity) use increases carbon footprint? Does this include to you hydro-electric and geothermal, and electricity from sources that would normally be wasted, such as converting natural gas normally released to the atmosphere or burned when oil mining?

    If so, can you educate me as to how this type of energy use affects climate change? This is a sincere question. Not meant to be provocative.

    Do I think using electricity that has been generated but would otherwise be wasted increases carbon footprint? Is that what you are asking? If so, the answer would be no.

    Actually no. You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet. So I was wondering if there was more to it than I know.

    I've no facts about how much of crypto mining electricity comes from carbon producing sources, but I have read many things that indicate a good portion comes from what I would consider non carbon producing sources. I've also read some things indicating much of that is from sources where there is excess capacity. This makes sense to me as excess capacity implies low cost, which is essential for such an activity.

    I was just trying to get a read on whether I'm missing some fundamental of the climate change equation that postulates all energy usage contributes to carbon footprint in some way. I'm pretty (willfully, I'll admit) ignorant on the climate change debate.

    I did take it into account. It is inherent in the problem of scalability. There is a lot of dispute about how clean current cryptomining actually is (also mentioned) . If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of the conventional banking system there is not enough clean energy to support it.

    Most of the claims about the reliance on renewable, low-impact electricity is from proponents of crypto. It doesn’t make them wrong but, in my opinion, makes them require a high level of scrutiny..

  • NeuMNeuM

    @espiegel123 said:

    @wim said:

    @wim said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    Yes, we are talking about electricity. You don’t have to guess anything. When people are taking about the carbon footprint, they are indeed talking about the electricity use. The figures we you state as fact are not undisputed. And, as you continue to overlook don’t address scalability. Some of the cryptomining operations you refer to as using clean energy are not able to expand because their energy demand is in the brink of exhausting the local supply.

    Your question about whether stopping cryptomining now skirts the issue I mentioned: scalability. It uses a small amount of total power today only because the number of transactions is trivially small compared to the banking system.

    Your argument is similar to the governor of South Dakota who brags about how few COVID deaths there have been in South Dakota because the total number is small. However on a per capita basis (which is the only meaningful way to asses) , South Dakota has a very high death rate. The total number she Brags about is a meaningless number without the context.

    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of banking transactions, the electricity use would be astronomical.

    Crypto’s trivial carbon footprint compared to global banking is only because crypto use is trivially small comparatively.

    I'm not going to get into this debate but it's an interesting read. @espiegel123 - to help me understand: is it your feeling that all energy (electricity) use increases carbon footprint? Does this include to you hydro-electric and geothermal, and electricity from sources that would normally be wasted, such as converting natural gas normally released to the atmosphere or burned when oil mining?

    If so, can you educate me as to how this type of energy use affects climate change? This is a sincere question. Not meant to be provocative.

    Do I think using electricity that has been generated but would otherwise be wasted increases carbon footprint? Is that what you are asking? If so, the answer would be no.

    Actually no. You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet. So I was wondering if there was more to it than I know.

    I've no facts about how much of crypto mining electricity comes from carbon producing sources, but I have read many things that indicate a good portion comes from what I would consider non carbon producing sources. I've also read some things indicating much of that is from sources where there is excess capacity. This makes sense to me as excess capacity implies low cost, which is essential for such an activity.

    I was just trying to get a read on whether I'm missing some fundamental of the climate change equation that postulates all energy usage contributes to carbon footprint in some way. I'm pretty (willfully, I'll admit) ignorant on the climate change debate.

    I did take it into account. It is inherent in the problem of scalability. There is a lot of dispute about how clean current cryptomining actually is (also mentioned) . If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of the conventional banking system there is not enough clean energy to support it.

    Most of the claims about the reliance on renewable, low-impact electricity is from proponents of crypto. It doesn’t make them wrong but, in my opinion, makes them require a high level of scrutiny..

    Just a note which I hope will be helpful for the discussion: Claims should be supported with citations and sources.

  • wimwim
    edited March 2021

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    Actually no. You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet. So I was wondering if there was more to it than I know.

    “ You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet.”

    That is impossible to determine. Would things be different if human beings still lived in caves? Would “the planet” be better off if we did X versus Y? These are unanswerable theoreticals.

    Of course it's impossible to determine. That wasn't my point in asking the question of @espiegel123.
    I don't understand the point you are making above. If it's important then I'd like to understand.

    I did learn some things that made me think, however.

    For instance, one of the largest crypto mining operations is in a region of China what an over capacity for hydro-electric. It's impractical to transport this electricity to regions that need it. This makes it low cost and (unless I'm uneducated on this point) carbon-neutral.

    Another crypto mining haven is Iceland where there is abundant geothermal.

    The most interesting was one that claims to be carbon beneficial. The natural gas byproduct of oil drilling is usually burned or simply released into the air. Some mining is done by converting that instead into electricity, which (if the article is accurate) actually reduces the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.

    I don't assume any of that as accurate on face value, but it did make me think.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited March 2021

    Functioning market> @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    Actually no. You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet. So I was wondering if there was more to it than I know.

    “ You didn't seem to take into account the source of the energy in your arguments about crypto mining energy impact on the planet.”

    That is impossible to determine. Would things be different if human beings still lived in caves? Would “the planet” be better off if we did X versus Y? These are unanswerable theoreticals.

    Of course it's impossible to determine. That wasn't my point in asking the question of @espiegel123.
    I don't understand the point you are making above. If it's important then I'd like to understand.

    We appear to be in agreement on the point.

  • dendydendy
    edited March 2021

    Another funny fact. Iceland is well known country with high abundance of electricity from renewable resources. To use this abundant electricity, in past they provided place for aluminium production industry (which needs ultra huge amount of electricity, lot lot more than bitcoin mining). This industry produces HUGE amount of stuff bad for environment.

    With expansion of Bitcoin mining industry, they basically pushed aluminium producers on Iceland out of game (because miners were capable to pay more for electricity), so this helped a lot with decreasing of negative impact to environment. Funny isn't ?

    Large part of mining is concentrated in China - Sihuan - why ? Because there is super overpowered hydroplant, which produces many times more electricity that is demand. So this way, they can use this electricity for something meaningful.

    There is a LOT such examples. There is company which is building bitcoin mining operations which are converting natural gas into electricity. Natural gas, which is normally by-product of oil mining and by standard oil mining operations it is released into air. So another example where bitcoin mining actually helps DECREASE nature impact of human industry.

    I can continue .. this industry is still in it's beginning, but it's rapidly evolving, adapting and trying to optimalise. The narrative in mainstream media is stucked in 5-7 years old status-quo. They are even not trying to lear what is situation now. Which is kinda sad.

  • wimwim
    edited March 2021

    Well anyway ... thanks all for patience with my posts. I've learned a lot.

    Personally, I don't understand the focus on energy in the debate over crypto. That horse has already left the barn. Crypto mining is here to stay and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. But, at least I've learned a few things (and have even made some money already B) ). By being here.

    I'm far more interested in the nuances of NFTs and more importantly in how blockchain technology might evolve into a better way to copyright, protect, buy and sell one's works than in debating over whether something that is now already a fact of life, is a good thing or not.

  • dendydendy
    edited March 2021

    @wim
    Personally, I don't understand the focus on energy in the debate over crypto.

    As i said, it's feeded mostly by uneducated mainstream media journalists, who read just something usually written by other un-educated journalist, and then they just copy same obsolete ideas and misinformation for years again and again ..

  • NeuMNeuM

    @dendy said:

    @wim
    Personally, I don't understand the focus on energy in the debate over crypto.

    As i said, it's feeded mostly by uneducated mainstream media journalists, who read just something usually written by other un-educated journalist, and then they just copy same obsolete ideas and misinformation for years again and again ..

    Hear, hear.

  • dendydendy

    @espiegel123
    If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of the conventional banking system there is not enough clean energy to support it.

    nope.. please read my long post above where i explained this ..

  • NeuMNeuM

    @dendy said:
    Another funny fact. Iceland is well known country with high abundance of electricity from renewable resources. To use this abundant electricity, in past they provided place for aluminium production industry (which needs ultra huge amount of electricity, lot lot more than bitcoin mining). This industry produces HUGE amount of stuff bad for environment.

    With expansion of Bitcoin mining industry, they basically pushed aluminium producers on Iceland out of game (because miners were capable to pay more for electricity), so this helped a lot with decreasing of negative impact to environment. Funny isn't ?

    Large part of mining is concentrated in China - Sihuan - why ? Because there is super overpowered hydroplant, which produces many times more electricity that is demand. So this way, they can use this electricity for something meaningful.

    There is a LOT such examples. There is company which is building bitcoin mining operations which are converting natural gas into electricity. Natural gas, which is normally by-product of oil mining and by standard oil mining operations it is released into air. So another example where bitcoin mining actually helps DECREASE nature impact of human industry.

    I can continue .. this industry is still in it's beginning, but it's rapidly evolving, adapting and trying to optimalise. The narrative in mainstream media is stucked in 5-7 years old status-quo. They are even not trying to lear what is situation now. Which is kinda sad.

    100%.

  • wimwim
    edited March 2021

    @espiegel123 said:
    I did take it into account. It is inherent in the problem of scalability. There is a lot of dispute about how clean current cryptomining actually is (also mentioned) . If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of the conventional banking system there is not enough clean energy to support it.

    That is equally true for electric vehicles. More so actually because of limited delivery infrastructure.

  • dendydendy

    @wim said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    I did take it into account. It is inherent in the problem of scalability. There is a lot of dispute about how clean current cryptomining actually is (also mentioned) . If crypto transactions occurred on anything like the scale of the conventional banking system there is not enough clean energy to support it.

    That is equally true for electric vehicles. More so actually because of limited delivery infrastructure.

    True for electric vehicles, totally not true for mining ;-) See explanation above.

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2024